Taking recourse to brute force

Avijit Pathak

Avijit Pathak
Professor, JNU

YES, the goons came, violated the sacred space of the university, attacked the students and teachers, and tried to teach us a lesson: ‘You — the JNU ‘anti-national’ elements — must know your ‘locations’.’ In a way, it was inevitable — a logical consequence of a design engineered by the ruling regime, and unfortunately nurtured by the utterly insensitive/non-dialogic JNU administration. It was a design to kill the emancipatory potential of critical pedagogy — the real dharma of a spirited public university.

In recent times characterised by triumphant majoritarianism, we seem to have degenerated as a nation. For those who are intoxicated with power, the ‘soul force’ that ought to characterise a university looks ridiculous — an ‘effeminate’ nonsense. And hence, they could send the cops to enter the Jamia library, and fire teargas shells. So, it need not surprise us anymore that this time, as the terrifying moments at JNU revealed, the cops chose to remain silent — almost like passive/silent observers, and allow these goons with rods, stones and weapons to enter the hostels, attack innocent boys and girls, and even university professors.

When they cannot diminish the creative energy implicit in a counter-hegemonic thinking, the brute force becomes their only option. This is the language of authoritarianism (or potential fascism, if you like to use yet another nomenclature). It abhors critical thinking; it fears the realm of creative ideas; it loathes the idea of a university — the nuanced culture of debate, dissent and the art of negotiation, and it hates the youth who have not yet lost their intelligence. It is gross, vulgar and demonic. It resembles the sadistic impulses through which narcissistic ‘nationalists’ shape the nation’s destiny and humiliate — coercively and verbally — all dissenting voices.

However, as a teacher/insider, it pains me to say that JNU has also been betrayed by its own administration. I have been teaching here since 1990. I have seen remarkably gifted Vice Chancellors. I have seen the culture of protest, the rebelliousness of young minds, and even the conflict between the university administration and the JNU Students’ Union. But never did I see such an incompetent and insensitive administration. Its ‘competent authority’ loves to remain confined to a Kafkaesque castle; he dislikes the company of students and teachers; he asks his ‘deputy’ to issue all sorts of threatening circulars, showcause notices and chargesheets (I am one of those 48 teachers who have been issued a chargesheet for participating in a peaceful demonstration), and impose fines on students. And although he occasionally tweets, and has the time for a noisy television anchor who is always concerned about the fate of the ‘republic’, even for a second he doesn’t bother to initiate a meaningful and honest conversation with the students and teachers to nurture and protect the institutional mechanisms like the Board of Studies and Academic Council to retain a transparent/democratic culture of decision-making. I have no hesitation in saying that this ‘competent authority’ is absolutely incapable of running a liberal university like ours. In a way, we live in a toxic milieu at JNU. His only contribution is that the administration has reduced all of us into soulless objects to be kept under perpetual surveillance. The goons came and attacked us. But then, I am not very sure whether his heart really aches for us.

Yet, amid this darkness, I see a ray of hope in the way our students retained the spirit of fearlessness and philosophic clarity, took what the anxiety-ridden middle class regards as ‘risks’, and continued their struggle for restoring the idea of an inclusive public university — a university that should nurture affordable/high-quality education. No, it was not merely about reducing the hostel charges. It has to be realised that through this struggle, they transcended their own narrow interests; they are fighting for a greater cause — for affordable higher education that can break the chain of the reproduction of social inequality. Not solely that. They didn’t bother about their own safety and careers. I see my own students — fresh young minds — refusing to cooperate with the administration: its cunning measure to cause fear psychosis and divide them. At times, they remind me of Gandhi’s fearlessness.

With his stubbornness and inflated ego, the ‘competent authority’ refuses to talk to students, and try sincerely to resolve the crisis. Instead, the idea of online examination (Whats- App university is here), the mockery of registration, and the bundle of lies have further annoyed all of us. At times, I ask myself: is there a logical relationship between the failure of the administration to demoralise these young minds, and the entry of the goons inside the campus? Sometimes, I ask myself whether with the present JNU administration, we can be really safe at JNU. I know that it is sad to lose the hope in my own university administration. However, this is the ultimate tragedy of JNU.

As I begin to see beyond the territory of JNU, I feel that here is a government that is terribly afraid of young students who think, imagine, reflect and strive for a better world. And hence, PM Modi is reported to have urged the youth to love the ‘system’; anything else, for him, is merely ‘anarchy’! When the youth — the thinking minds from JNU, Jamia, Jadavpur, Hyderabad, Aligarh and other places — debunk the CAA, and articulate their solidarity with the feminine power visibly present at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, the brute masculinity of the militant nationalist discourse experiences a severe legitimation crisis. And when arguments die, reason collapses, and sanity is sacrificed, what emerges is the assertion of the repressive apparatus of the State. Yes, for the ruling establishment, liberating ideas have to be killed, the creative energy of the youth has to be destroyed, and violence has to be normalised.

The tragedy is that the present JNU administration is not qualitatively different from this gross culture of anti-intellectualism.