Home

Crowdfunding Countercurrents

CC Archive

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution

#SaveVizhinjam

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

CC Youtube Channel

Editor's Picks

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name


E-mail:



Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

 

 

 

The Many Lessons On Nation And Constitution From Seditious JNU And A Search For The Outsider

By Mithilesh Kumar

26 February, 2016
Countercurrents.org

Disclaimer: The student-leaders of JNU in prison are neither my sons, my students, my lovers or in any way related and I am not and never have been from that university (these days it has become important to show a pedigree of relationships with them to be allowed heft in the opinion). At best we will call each other comrades only to the extent that we share the same praxis of revolution but we will be at each other’s throat on the subject of stage and programme of revolution. And in that spirit I write this piece with one change that it will not be polemical though it might sound and it is contentious.

Politics is war by other means or so Foucault suggested in a reversal of the doctrine of Clausewitz. The war by the state that was unleashed on students all over the country was brought inside the gates of JNU. The state has now taken three prisoners-of-war from the university. The mainstream opposition has united in a show of solidarity that is high on octane and low on effectivity. Few disruptions, more theatrics and the status quo continues. It will be a waste of words to critique them. However, now that we have reached a position in the battle where we can review what we have lost, what we have won and what could still be ours. This article is one very small step in that direction.

From February 9, 2016 till now incidents have cascaded in a way that it is difficult to say what was important and what was less important. It will take perhaps months if not years to understand the significance of this state crackdown on JNU and the resulting movement. I will just take a few which I could discern. I do not make any claims that they will appear important or significant to others but if we could at least start a dialogue on what has transpired it would only go to sharpen our strategy and tactics for a long drawn battle which it will be.

The first thing which struck me in this whole movement since February 13 when I was present in the campus was the way we identified the BJP-led government at the Centre. Everyone made this observation that people who are descendants of Nathuram Godse have no right to preach nationalism. In fact, this line of argument is now common. I think we should be a little careful using it because it is precisely what nationalism is. Nathuram Godse was not an opportunist in using the veil of nationalism or patriotism he was honest. He, in fact, blurred the divisions between nationalism, patriotism, lunacy and fundamentalism. He was, if anything, the very icon of a corrosive patriotism. His killing of Gandhi does not make him a hypocritical nationalist but a true nationalist and it is a reminder that nationalism will necessarily lead to acts of killing and xenophobia. We should have the courage to reject nationalism and patriotism and yet stake a claim on the state. Let the earlier argument be for those who have to do liberal politics but it is not good enough for the radical forces who are fighting against caste, inequality and state violence.

Related to the above argument is the way how much constitution was invoked in our responses. Almost everyone including the teachers, one of the student-leaders arrested, the student unions, intellectuals etc. made the point that they firmly believe in the constitution of India and hence should not be considered seditious. It might be true that they do but that cannot be all in terms of our defense. If India is truly what it proclaims, a democratic country, then the protections ensured under the constitution should be applicable even to those who do not believe in this constitution. The state cannot make protections conditional on the beliefs of its subject. The state cannot and should not have a transactional relationship with its subject. Someone’s belief in the constitution of India cannot be the litmus test of patriotism or for making claims on the state. After all, if that be the case very few forms of political action will be possible. This assertion by us that we believe in the constitution of India is highly unnecessary and totally avoidable. It is because the state is making this a precondition that we are seeing scenes of hyperventilation from both sides- the ruling benches as well as the opposition.

Finally, what was most disappointing was the shadowy figure of ‘the outsider’. Everyone said that the slogans that were raised were not supported by the organizers at JNU, in fact whole of JNU, and that it was shouted by outsiders. The implications of this statement are dangerous. If the issue is freedom of expression and we are making the claim that sedition charges could not be applied on the arrested student-leaders because there was no attempt at inciting the violence the same is true for the outsiders. Freedom of expression cannot be graded in terms of who supports what or whether one tried to stop that kind of sloganeering. Even if the slogan was of destroying India we should have stood by it. We can’t make an argument that mere sloganeering does not amount to sedition and then go on to say that we do not support it, they were outsiders and we tried to stop them. We cannot make that boundary between JNU and outsiders which sadly has been the case.

In conclusion and perhaps in a black humour sort of a way it was hammered that JNU has produced generations of IAS, IFS and army officers. So many of them are serving in the cabinet now etc. etc. It almost suggested that JNU produces exceptional cogs in the wheels of the state apparatus and professional intellectuals that serve the government universities. It made the act of politics by the student-leaders almost exceptional. While no one will argue that JNU has a pride of place in the intellectual map of India but one should emphasize too that it shares that place with each and every intellectual space and that it is first among equals. As a very poignant signed letter said on facebook that there should be no “JNU nationalism” as a response to the state crackdown similarly there are no outsiders when radical politics is concerned. Liberals look for agreements, radicals thrive on disagreement and polemics and that’s what these student-leaders and the JNU movement has demonstrated.

Mithilesh Kumar is a PhD Candidate at Western Sydney University, Australia. His interest is in the issues of logistics, migration and labour, political philosophy and theory. He wants to work on the nature, evolution and innovation of the Indian state with respect to social and political movements in India. Email: [email protected]



 



 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated