Towards 6th August UGBM: Reject Sectarian One-upmanship; Forge Broad Consensus!

SFI

31.08.2010

Rather than responding to the questions raised by the SFI, the AISA pamphlet dated 30.08.10 has once again tried to spread confusion and create divisions within the student community. In a display of desperate one-upmanship, it has also proposed a resolution for the forthcoming UGBM on 6th September, 2010, without caring for a consensus to emerge within the student community. This sectarian attitude of the AISA leadership, which always places its narrow partisan interests above the broader interests of the student community, has immensely harmed the cause of restoring the JNUSU elections so far. What are the Real Options Today? In a span of two weeks, the AISA leadership has changed its position thrice on the question of dialogue with the amicus curiae in the court case (who is presently the Solicitor General of India): AISA Pamphlet dated 16th August 2010 stated: All Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (including age limit and number of times a candidate can contest) are unacceptable in JNU. AISA pamphlet dated 27th August 2010 stated: AISA is ready to go for these proposed negotiations (with the Solicitor General) with an open mind. AISA pamphlet dated 30th August 2010 stated: To immediately enter into negotiations with the Solicitor General in which the baseline is to ensure as an interim measure the conduct of JNUSU elections according to the JNUSU Constitution, while accepting the two modified Lyngdoh Restrictions of the age and repetition criterion.

What accounts for this flip flop and mutually inconsistent positions is an absence of a proper assessment of todays real options by the AISA leadership as well as an attempt to cover up its follies of the past. The students of JNU have fought the court battle against the imposition of the Lyngdoh Committee for the past two years. The resolution proposed during the last semester by all the other organisations excluding the AISA, in essence, tried to expand the legal battle to the political sphere by going ahead with the JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU Constitution and dealing with the legal aspects as and when they arise. It was the AISA which opposed such a course, invoking the fear of contempt proceedings, and proposed the filing of an interim petition in the Supreme Court to vacate the stay as the only option. Since this position got majority support in the UGBM, an interim petition was filed in the court. The Supreme Court has clearly suggested that it will vacate the stay on the JNUSU elections only on the terms agreed by the amicus curiae. The two modified Lyngdoh Restrictions of the age and repetition criterion mentioned by the AISA were proposed by the amicus curiae in the day of the last hearing on 3rd May 2010. If the amicus curiae had to agree to the baseline proposed in the AISAs resolution, he could have done it on that day itself. Why has AISA not talked about opening any dialogue with the amicus curiae since then? It is because AISA leadership realised, that having filed the interim petition, the entire process will now be at the mercy of the amicus curiae and the Supreme Court. This is precisely what all other organisations had argued before the UGBM of the last semester! As matters stand today, it is not feasible to return to the situation before the interim petition was filed and expand the legal battle to the political domain. Therefore only two options remain. Either we open dialogue with the amicus curiae with an open mind and arrive at a compromise solution in order to conduct JNUSU elections, while continuing to fight the legal battle on Lyngdoh Committee or to give up any prospect of holding JNUSU elections until the larger question of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations are settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which will take several years. The AISA leadership knows this more than anybody else. But unable to take a call in the best interest of the student community and refusing to honestly own up its past follies, the AISA leadership is trying to lead the student community down the garden path by proposing the elections to the AC and BoS as a substitute for the JNUSU elections. They are doing so in the most disingenuous manner by spreading confusion within the student community and needlessly attacking the SFI for imagined wrongs. SFI appeals to the AISA leadership to refrain from such cheap and dubious methods and be honest and sincere in its approach.

Dialogue with Amicus Curiae After careful consideration of all pros and cons, SFI has arrived at the opinion that initiating dialogue with the amicus curiae is the best option before the student community in the given circumstances. The dialogue should focus on getting the maximum possible relaxation from the Lyngdoh restrictions, with the bottomline being defending the autonomous character of the JNUSU elections, i.e. conduct of JNUSU elections through an Election Committee elected by students, which is the bedrock of the JNUSU Constitution and accounts for its uniqueness. SFI believes that this is achievable under the given circumstances. However, SFI also believes that setting strict baselines before the commencement of the dialogue would be counter-productive. SFI would be happy if the amicus curiae agrees to these baselines in the course of the dialogue. But what if the amicus curiae refuses to agree? Do we do not go an inch further from those baselines? Or do we come back after the first round of dialogue to convene another UGBM to revise those baselines? We have to realise that dialogue with an amicus curiae is not similar to having negotiations with the government or administrative authorities during an agitation. There, political mobilisation and pressure can legitimately be brought upon to shift the terms in favour of students. In the case of a legal battle, a dialogue can be pursued mainly through persuasion. In this particular case, setting strict baselines as suggested by the AISA and then demanding guarantees of success in the negotiations, actually amount to constraining the Joint Struggle Committee and foreclosing the possibility of any negotiated settlement in the Supreme Court. SFI believes that the Joint Struggle Committee should be given a mandate to conduct a dialogue with the amicus curiae to hold the JNUSU elections expeditiously (certainly within this semester), as per the JNUSU Constitution to the maximum possible extent and safeguarding the autonomy of the JNUSU Election Committee. Elections to AC and BoS Elections to AC and BoS can never be a substitute for JNUSU elections. Unlike the JNUSU, AC and BoS are administrative bodies and their elections are conducted by the administration. The meetings of AC and BoS are held only once a semester (twice in a year) and the scope of these bodies are fairly restricted. Having student representatives in AC and BoS cannot fill the vacuum created by the absence of an elected JNUSU, which can intervene on all issues concerning students and fight for their rights, 24 hours a day for 365 days. Contrary to AISAs misgivings, SFI is in favour of holding elections to the AC and BoS. But these elections should be conducted after the JNUSU elections are held. One wonder what had stopped the AISA leadership from demanding the AC and BoS elections till date. Why these elections are being demanded only in the context of the JNUSU elections? If these elections could wait till now, why cannot they wait till the JNUSU elections are over in this semester? The UGBM on 6th August is meant to discuss the restoration of the JNUSU elections. Any attempt to link up JNUSU elections with AC and BoS elections, like the resolution proposed by the AISA does, amounts to suggesting that the latter can act as a substitute for the former. SFI does not favour such an understanding. UGBM Resolution: Need for a Broad Consensus In view of the complex situation faced by the student community vis--vis the restoration of the JNUSU elections, SFI appeals to all student organisations and individual students to work towards a consensus. Unlike the AISA, which has unilaterally publicized its Resolution in a bid to impose its sectarian understanding on others, SFI expresses its willingness to frame and move a common resolution along with other student organisations which adopt a consensual approach. SFI also appeals to the AISA to forsake its sectarian approach and help in forging a broad consensus to open dialogue with the amicus curiae and conducting the JNUSU elections in this semester. Sd/Lenin President SFI-JNU Sd/P.K. Anand Secretary SFI-JNU