Akash Sulochana
Here I wish to deconstruct the ‘Narrative of fear’ used as a part of the dominant discourse of left in JNU as a part of their political propaganda:
a. If you do not vote for us, ABVP will come.
b. If you vote for BAPSA, the vote will be split, and ABVP will get the benefit.
c. Except left, all other opponent parties (NSUI, BAPSA) are the ‘B’ team of ABVP.
The narrative of fear which is historical but also socially constructed in JNU by left has two motivations:
a) To get votes from masses of students in the name of fear.
b) To categorize all the opponents as contributing agents of fear and accuse them of having a nexus with the very reason of fear (and indirectly make them subjects of the state).
This article deals with only one question: how to understand and deal with the narrative of fear. What I mean by narrative of fear can be understood in two ways: firstly, a right-wing shift in student politics followed by a global right-wing shift in politics. And secondly, right-wing fundamentalist agenda to destroy democratic fabrics in the universities and make them subject to capitalist agenda.
By doing this, I am not denying the historical context of the present, but criticizing the instrumental use of historical conditions for political purpose and also for abandoning alternative discourse in the university.
[I]
Students’ issues and broader ideological standpoint: Critique of the left
A University cannot be seen in isolation. ABVP, student outfit of RSS decides strategically to stick to students’ issues and ideologically remains silent on larger society. We need to critically examine both spheres with equal seriousness.
A) On students’ issues: it is not widely discussed and not politicized e.g. friendly infrastructure, better library facilities, issue of scholarships and freeships, delay in MCM, etc.
B) On the ideological level: the existing praxis of left organizations in India always avoid taking a radical stand on issues of caste. The same legacy can be clearly seen in left leading JNUSU. Here are some examples:
1. When 124th Amendment (reservation for EWS) was passed in both the parliament houses, JNUSU didn’t come out with the single parcha on opposing the amendment as it kills the very aim and objectives of reservation policy. It might be argued that after one month they opposed the AC meeting which was supposed to decide about the implementation of EWS. But the real cause of opposing was different. It was about not inviting JNUSU for the AC meeting. Also, there is not a logical possibility to believe in the JNUSU representative to take a stand on the issue as they did not oppose the bill (officially).
2. When Dalit Scholar Kancha Illaiah was attacked, JNUSU didn’t come out with a single parcha condemning the attack as they were in a dilemma whether to condemn the attack on the scholar or not.
3. There is an overrepresentation of Brahmins in professor staff positions and almost token representation of OBC, SC, SC, PH category and Muslims, but there is no protest on this issue demanding fulfillment of reservation quota in appointments of various posts.
4. When it comes to the discourse of the ‘university’ as such, the left represents a conservative force. By ‘discourse of the university’ I mean that discourse which on the one hand imagines that only “external” onslaughts of the BJP-RSS government can essentially harm the university, and on the other hand, avoids taking a critical stance with regards to the cultural elitism of the professorial class in JNU because this class has been the ideological bearer of left ideology. The left’s failure to unreservedly question the cultural elitism and exclusions of the professorial class in JNU is undercut by their satisfaction that this professorial class is, on the whole, an “ideological ally”. The left student organisations have failed to question the Brahmanical elitist culture of the professorial class in JNU (not individual conscientious faculty members) which to this today maintains a conservative opinion on issues of curriculum design (no serious academic engagement with Ambedkar and Phule in most of the centres of JNU), questions of prejudiced evaluation (largely favouring a particular tone and accent of spoken and written English in term papers), and still describing their centres as symbols of “excellence” and “premier” while ignoring that these centres have not produced any serious academic engagement with anti-caste thought. All this is avoided by the left organizations, irrespective of the fact that they may have members from underrepresented groups, out of the fear that criticism of these exclusionary practices within JNU would give traction and legitimacy to the right-wing. Truth is avoided by the left, most crucially, because they feel facing the truth of this institution would give an illegitimate advantage to their adversary. The left is here a paradoxical mix of a ruling class and a resistance to the idea of a ruling class. Sometimes, or most of the time, the former triumphs over the latter.
[II]
The left narrative to categorize all opponents as contributing agents of fear and accuse them of having a nexus with the very cause of fear (and indirectly make them the subjects of the state):
The labeling theory is widely used by both left and right to shut the mouths of their opponents. It also makes other opponents the subject of the narrative of fear in front of masses of the students ( by accusing them of linkage with ABVP) and also compel students to see things in binary opposition- i.e. the left and the right. ABVP in every presidential debate calls all the parties left (speaking the language of left) and left labels all the opponents right.
While challenging the left narrative on criminalising Muslim organisations, the attempt is not to justify any communal hate speech or position against sexual minorities, but to find possibilities in the kind of organisations where oppressed voices become visible in the public sphere. The student organization is not something static but it revolutionises, radicalises, changes in the process of structuration. This is the autonomy of student politics in universities which give agency to criticize their parent organizations, taking an independent stand on issues in university spaces.
But by labeling and categorizing, the very fundamental rights of the suppressed minority is denied. I want to add an additional point in that discussion.
1. Comparing majoritarian nationalist Hindutva fundamentalist RSS with the various Muslim Organisations is decontextualized and distorts the history for the political purpose. The power dynamics are also ignored and treated both in the same manner (same way RSS did with the medieval history).
2. Although a large part of what today constitutes India was ruled by Muslim kings in the medieval period of Indian history, suitably supported by a class of upper-caste Hindu and Muslim aristocracy, minority Culture was never able to dominate Hindu majority Culture in India.[1] Hence equating the fact of Muslim ruling class elite with the fact of Hindu cultural majoritarianism is wrong, politically and historically.
3. Oppressed has the agency to choose how they wish to manifest themselves politically. It’s not an easy task like Bengali bhadralok to speak in the public sphere fearlessly.
4. In the culture of mob lynching where there is a culture of violence spreading up across the nation in the name of the identity of Muslim, left by making Islamobhopic statement criminalized Muslim voices within the organization. It certified them ‘communal,’ ‘not secure’ and so’ potential threat to the nation.’ By doing this, it also provides Muslim voices as a subject to perpetuate state violence on them. Moreover, by denying their rights to participate in the political organization based on the assertion of identity, it ignores the pan Indian attack on Muslims on identity basis. It also fails to recognize fear and insecurity felt by Muslims in India. By not recognizing the context of criminalization of Muslim lives in India, and its resultant violence, the left makes a moralistic claim that one should not organize based on religion when religion is a major axis of discrimination and privilege in our historical moment.
5. Criminalizing Muslim voices also decrease, limited possibilities of views and assertion from the minority section who wish to assert in their own way.
[III]
How much is the left really concerned about the danger?
Let’s look at some empirical facts to look out the matter:
1. Except for JNU, there is no ‘left Unity’ in the DU and many universities in India.
2. In HCU last year, the alliance between SFI and Ambedkar Student Association broke and each one contest separately. The interesting fact is after announcing the result, left party celebrated it for getting second position as afterward they don’t have to share posts with the ASA by conveniently ignoring the winning of ABVP in the campus.
3. While making alliances, it is broadly about winning the election. (as the main agenda) This can be seen empirically while observing left campaign for last three years. Though it apparently feels like each one is campaigning for each post equally, which is not the case. Everyone is conscious about building a network of his own organisation and consider temporarity of unity in the mind, which is often manifested from the fight for getting more seats in the post to the selective bias in the campaigning.
[V]
What will happen if ABVP wins the JNUSU election?
While the real threat of ABVP in destroying JNU is genuine, the fundamental questions are to what extent the narrative helps to mobilize student without developing any collective conscience.The pessimistic position of left by always blaming right for all and using it instrumentally is fail to build confidence among students for the long term. It might gain sympathy in the name of fear, but it doesn’t help to accept left as a left for their radical agenda in left politics.
Some additional points need to be taken into consideration:
1. From taking accounts from JNUSU history, Saurabh Sharma 2015 JNUSU Joint secretary and the event of Feb 2016 must be seen in the broader historical context of BJP agenda to target JNU rather than making reductionist causal relation with the getting post and attack on JNU.
2. JNUSU is a legal student union of JNU. Last year after one month of election JNU Admin made it illegal and stopped inviting JNUSU for AC meeting and other democratic forums. It shows that the legal certificate is not required to forward the struggle. Though there is a real danger of ABVP, it doesn’t need to exaggerate on the point that without electing on the JNUSU post which is legal certifying body of students struggle is not possible for left or any parties. It must be continued, even become more sharp and inclusive in the time of more oppression.
3. JNUSU as a democratic election process, of course, shows the popular trend in politics among students but it doesn’t consider the division of the vote among progressive fronts. So except ABVP if there is a majority, it still shows student tends towards liberal, progressive ideology.
4. The impression was made as JNUSU succeed to stop admin through there struggle by using the JNUSU constitution in bureaucratic fashion. The linkage of officially electing and forwarding the struggle is not entirely right, e.g. lockdown moment contributes a lot to the struggle and it is led by individuals and later got active support from BAPSA.
Insofar as the left unity aimed to keep ABVP away from the union for the past few years, it has been successful. After all, that was the rationale of the alliance. But it needs to be asked whether that should be the only aim of left unity? To what extent did they intensify the sense of struggle within the campus? Last year was the most lukewarm year in terms of protests, and it seems that large scale depoliticization is going on on the campus. It needs to be asked whether the left unity takes the decline of student mobilisation and oppositional consciousness among the student body as a whole seriously or not. Or whether it is merely satisfied with keeping power over the union for the last few years and keeping ABVP out of it?
~
Note: [1] Sudipta Kaviraj makes a point in his ‘Enchantment of the State’ that Muslim rulers during the medieval period always uncritically accepted the social formation of Indian society based on castes, and did their best not to disturb the hierarchical relations operative in such a society.
~~~
