I have never shied from expressing contrarian views. Then why should today be any different. That Kanhaiya would appeal to me was always a foregone conclusion. I hate jesters and I hate students who dabble in politics and I also hate vehemently playing to the gallery and vending half truths or blending fact with fiction. But in this case it upsets me no end to think that many an educated person is lending ears to Kanhaiya. A glib talker, with a demeanour reminiscent of his mofussil town roots, which seemingly don’t threaten his metro counterparts, he is feeding strong on the errors of commission of the BJP and the ham handed manner in which their crack teams have handled the situation. BJP acting in concert with its youth wing the ABVP, set out to demonise a relatively unknown student but landed up heroising him.
One thing is clear, JNU is offering an easy to pursue curriculum to it's students else the time they spend in dhaba politics would certainly not be at their disposal. The manner in which they are debating stupid political issues is clearly indicative of a lack of rigor in the curriculum. And also indicative of the fact that they are basking is some pseudo intellectualism which when at its best gets you a seat in the civil service of India, by becoming a part of which, you do what the government has done to JNU, that is charge you with obsolete sections on sedition, usually not maintainable in court of law and perpetuating this vicious cycle of events.
I can never imagine students of premium technical institutions like IITs or IIMs doing what is happening in JNU. In these colleges the curriculum is so rigorous that you cannot think of anything but academics. The narrative is completely different for humanities where lack of rigour encourages students to play truant, teachers to stay away from teaching and both to dabble in fringe politics. These streams I think all over the country have this reputation. The political parties also are eager to take student leaders under their patronage. And given that politics is one of the most lucrative professions these days - the wealth accumulated by the Gandhis, or Mayawati or Jayalalitha or that amassed by Vadra in such short span is a feat that no business man with even Buffett’s acumen can ever dream of - he who is thick skinned enough, will surely like to join it.
The above not-withstanding, I am not advocating that students should not be politically active or politically conscientious. They are future of the country, and their voice must be heard in moulding the future of the country. But main stream politics with political parties openly supporting student factions on educational campuses is a premature proposition. I think the Lyngdoh Committee also had similar recommendations. The commission was unambiguous in stating in Cl 6.3 : "Dissociation of Student Elections and Student Representation from Political Parties".
Particularly when students as a class are inherently recidivist rebels. Their brand of politics is all about rabble rousing and rowdyism. Their age is such. And this is the innate strain that they take with them when they are catapulted into main stream politics from student activism. And that precisely is the reason for our politicians behaving the way they do. Hence, one way to create a different genre of politics is by banning actual politics in these breeding grounds themselves. But to ensure, that opinion of youth is not stifled and their voices are not muffled, and their participation in the making of the future of the country is not curbed, universities must invent formats of the shadow politics. A genre of clean politics, consensual politics. politics of polite and intelligent debate, of dissent and of decent discourse.
As for Kanhaiya - the Bhumihar from Begusarai - he is savvy enough to keep shifting the goal posts with an adeptness to avoid coming in the direct line of fire. And BJP and it's youth wing ABVP stands in clay footed jeopardy to the 360 degree shoot and scoot by Kanhaiya. In his post bail speech he in a bold and brazen fashion mocked Modi and gave a completely new dimension to the whole debate. The initial issue was simple. It was about anti-India slogans. He turned the whole thing into pro and anti JNU and pro and anti development debate. Whether he supported sloganeering that encouraged dismemberment of India and whether he memorialised Agzal Guru as martyr were clearly issues he completely skirted. On the other hand he gave a nouveau and poetic twist to Azadi reflecting bourgeois aspirations that resounded well with his audience. Punctuating his diatribe with anecdotal evidence to an audience that continuously cheered him and jeered the establishment.
