Right To Be A Coward
By Waqas Farooq Kuttay
19 March, 2016
Countercurrents.org
The February 09 event at JNU which got enough media attention still remains the talk of the day. Every day newspapers carry a news report strictly dealing with the events that keep unfolding after the incident. There is no doubt that the incident has been blown out of proportion. It has become a matter of ego for the so called nationals who are rallying together to punish the so called anti-nationals. The debate thus far has been limited to whether the event was within the purview of nationalism or not.
I want to highlight a different concern. A few days after the incident, police started hunting the people who were thought to be responsible for the event. The organizers of the event were booked for the sedition and it was alleged that there were some outsiders notably Kashmiri students who raised the anti-India slogans. As a result, many of the Kashmiri students left Delhi fearing for their safety. Let us assume that there were indeed outside students involved and they went into hiding after the incident. Now the question is what should have been the reaction of the ‘allegedly involved outside students’ to the witch hunt carried out by the police. That is the dilemma I am facing right now. A few days back, I had a discussion with my friends over the dreadful possibilities which those ‘allegedly involved students’ would have faced if caught by the police or if they came to spotlight. My friends sturdily maintained that they should have gone into hiding but I strongly discarded the idea. My friends stuck to their position forwarding a different set of arguments that I countered. I don’t know which set of arguments are right or wrong. I am just writing it down.
The first argument in support of ‘hiding’ was that the state is very powerful and it would have struck with the full might against those involved in the incident. But it was not an unknown thing. The state is/was powerful before the incident and it remains so. Those allegedly involved students knew this fact too well and also how it could have an effect on their lives or careers. Therefore, if a person stands up against something (in this case State)and has a ‘cause’ which he admires by heart and thinks the ‘cause’ is worth pursuing then he should be able to stand for it by heart disregarding consequences. He should stand for it even if the ‘cause’ demands his life or career. Moreover, a person should always be ready to face the consequences of his/her actions. The second argument supplied by my friends was that hiding is like a strategy where you strike and then hide. And they gave examples of guerilla warfare. I reminded them that there were protests at Jawaharlal Nehru University and it was not guerilla warfare. Those are two different scenarios and shouldn’t be confused as one and the same. Violence is a different thing and protest (by protest I mean those protests where no violence is committed) is different. People don’t go to Jantar Mantar just for the game of ‘Protest and Hide’. Therefore, we have to understand the meaning of the two terms.
Then another argument in support of hiding was that the mob would have lynched them (like Kanhaiya Kumar was beaten outside the court complex). And they argued that public sentiment was very high at that time. I agree that public sentiments were very high. A large number of people would have come out in protest against those ‘allegedly involved outside students’ but just after the incident took place there was also a huge public support for the JNU event and some even went on to publicly speak for the Kashmir cause. Was this public opinion enough? I agree that this public opinion in support of the event was not enough to prevent the mob to lynch or beat up those students arrested. I am also apprehensive that this might have been proved true because despite Supreme Court strongly reprimanding the Delhi Police over the security lapses provided to Kanhaiya Kumar; he was still beaten up by an unruly mob. Next my friends questioned me whether Umar Khalid was brave or coward? I don’t know.
The only argument which in my opinion favors the hiding of those behind the incident is ‘mob’. Umar Khalid and his friends emerged at JNU after hiding for ten or more days. After mitigating the ‘Unruly Mob Effect’, Umar and Anirban voluntarily surrendered before the police, therefore, it reinforces my argument that a person should face the consequences of his actions (whether he was involved in sloganeering or not is a different question).
Next argument, and most stupid in my opinion, was that those ‘allegedly involved students’ internationalized the Kashmir issue and support poured from all over the world. For God sake do not fool yourself. Kashmir issue is an international issue from 1947. The UNO is still involved in the dispute. And don’t forget the decade of 1990’s or the years after 2008. And if you read newspapers carefully it is evident that most of the support came in favor of JNU and not Kashmir and there is a huge difference between the two and I don’t believe that support for JNU meant support for Kashmir. If my friends think that issue has been internationalized, then please read the recent stand of JNU, different student organizations, student council and students on February 09 incident. They have clearly condemned the February 09 event as divisive and sidelined the Kashmir issue.
In my opinion, those ‘allegedly involved students’ had a moral duty to be ready to face the consequence of their actions. They could not just strike and hide putting hundreds of students in danger of being lynched by ‘mob’ (of whom those ‘alleged involved students’ were allegedly afraid).One person I personally know was called by the police several times for verification because they thought he might be one of those ‘alleged students’ (fortunately he was not).Now when I asked my friends that why should he bear the consequences of someone else’s deeds? They replied that everybody has to give sacrifice, but my question is why him? If those ‘alleged students’ can hide and not face consequences, if they can’t sacrifice then why someone else? Those ‘allegedly involved students’ don’t have a ‘Right to be a Coward’. If those ‘allegedly involved students’ are somehow the future leaders of Kashmir’s freedom struggle, then I think they hardly deserve that right. A leader should be honest and his integrity beyond any question. At least be honest towards the ‘cause’ that you claim to fight for. Be honorable. It would have been better if those ‘allegedly involved students’ had been in jail, taken some blows from police, risked their lives and careers for the ‘cause’. I may sound idealistic, but that is what is called to offer sacrifice for a particular cause. That is what a struggle demands. They would have earned my respect, respect of the people and served the ‘cause’. Otherwise, it looks like a publicity stunt.
Waqas Farooq Kuttay is a Research Scholar Center for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
Email: [email protected]