JNU-unrest marks the utter Failure of University’s Administration & Faculty to Handle the Matter Maturely

A “University” encompasses the ‘Universe’ of ideologies, concepts, thoughts, views & opinions. And it also represents a change from the one-way learning-process at school, to a somewhat two-way process of learning -- when, for the first time, a student starts sheepishly questioning the very dogmas which he or she was taught at school to learn by rote.

Albeit, this process is protected by the maturity of the Faculty & Administration from either spilling out into the personal lives of the students, or outside the Gates of the University -- that is why the Portals of the Universities were closed to policemen; and the Universities followed their own in-built mechanisms of Counselors, Proctors etc.

Ideally speaking, Political Parties should desist from politicising Universities, and also from radicalising the Students.

Delhi High Court is wrong in surmising that the Armed Forces’ personnel face only a rough terrain or climate or weather -- we, in the Armed Forces, suffer not only prolonged separation from our near & dear ones, but also severance for life of one or more of our limbs, or even the parting of our Souls from our bodies when we are brought back home in a coffin draped with our Tri-colour (an honour which loses its significance when a corrupt politician who dies due to over-indulgence in the goodies of life, is also draped in the same way).

There are ways to disagree with a decision of any Organ of the State, or with its line-of-approach, or its implementation of various Constitutional, statutory or other provisions etc -- especially in a University that is meant for an in-depth analysis & honest research into academic matters, brain-storming, debate &c. For example, JNU students-cum-faculty could have organised a moot-court to clinically & unemotionally discuss whether the judicial decision in a particular matter conformed to its decisions in similar offences, or was it judgmental in its approach?

Kehar Singh was hanged on 06.01.1989 for being involved in plotting the killing of Mrs. Indira Gandhi -- who, as Prime Minister, was killed by her own Security Personnel drawn from Delhi Police (upon whom the Supreme Court, too, is heavily dependent these days for the safety of its judges). And Mr. YV Chandrachud (who had by then retired as Chief Justice of India) questioned the imposition of “extreme” penalty of death-sentence on the basis of “circumstantial evidence” alone. Will anyone dub Mr. Chandrachud as “anti-national”? If yes, then please ask him/ her to file a PIL against Mr. Chandrachud in Allahabad High Court -- whose Chief Justice today is Mr. Chandrachud’s own son!

On 23.10.1962, while fighting chivalrously, Subedar Joginder Singh was badly wounded and was taken prisoner by the Chinese during the Indo-Pak War -- he died in captivity. But the Peoples’ Liberation Army of China was so impressed by his bravery that they returned his ashes to India -- with “full military honours”. Were the PLA Officers & Men acting anti-nationally?

In fact, there is a noble Military Tradition that whenever the body of a dead alien soldier is buried or cremated or is handed back to his Military-colleagues, all the Officers and Men involved in this process (from both the countries) salute the departed soul of the dead soldier -- the Author has a video of this Tradition being kept alive by Our Troops during the Kargil War (1999). Can we call this Tradition as anti-national?   

I fought the 1971-War for this Nation, and have also been Advocate-on-Record at Supreme Court -- if I were to argue before the court that, on legal grounds, xyz ought not to be hanged on the basis of only circumstantial evidence, should I be called an anti-national?

Guru Gobind Singh supported the acts of Bhai Kanhaiya (a Sikh) who during the battle of Anandpur Sahib in the year 1704 offered water to all wounded-soldiers -- irrespective of whether the recipient of such a humanitarian benediction was a Sikh soldier or a Mughal soldier. Was he an anti-nationalist or anti-Sikh?

The acts of Florence Nightingale were also similar to that act of Bhai Kanhaiya. Was she not less patriotic than her own countrymen who had, in the first place, wounded those very soldiers whose wounds Florence Nightingale was now tending? For that matter, will we call the Members of International Red-Cross and Red Crescent Movement as “anti-national”?

By shouting once-a-year on Independence Day “Bharat Mata ki Jai!” and thereafter coolly going about one’s illegal business of manufacturing and/or selling spurious drugs for the rest of the year, does not make anyone a “Nationalist” -- the same goes for the bureaucrats who, while displaying the Indian Tri-colour on their Desks, accept bribes under the same very table for the whole year. The same is the case with big Corporate Houses who collectively owe about Rs.4,00,00,00,00,00,000 as “bad debts” to Indian Banks -- a large chunk of which was apparently paid by them as “donations” to various political parties. It is well-known that no Business House pays to any political party out of its own income (pocket) and it is equally well-known that political parties in India neither declare their true income to Income-Tax Authority nor reveal the actual Sources thereof, nor disclose to the general public what the parties earn and how they spend it -- whereas almost all the money lost by Banks on such bad debts actually belong to the toiling Indian Masses, mostly comprising of the middle income group. Add to this the “bad debts” that were written off by Banks & other Financial Institutions in the past AND the “black money” that was generated by some Business Houses etc by not paying their Tax-Dues.

The case of a half-baked “intellectual” (i.e. an individual who has not yet become the product/ outcome of a learning environment) cannot be viewed differently and, hence, he/ she does not become an anti-national merely by shouting once -- that, too, under an emotional spell, something that may be against the Government-of-the-day or any Organ of the State; mens rea is an essential ingredient of every triable and punishable crime. Moreso, there are better ways to handle the misguided “learners”, within any University-system, available to the Administrators & Faculty of the concerned University (the Latin word ‘alma mater’ means a “nurturing mother”).

It is pertinent to mention that “Freedom of Thought & Expression” is a much misunderstood genre of ‘Rights’, in that (i) freedom of thought is alright as long as the thought (idea) is in one’s own mind, and to that extent it is a Universal Right; but (ii) the Freedom of Expression is restricted to the “Intellectuals” -- the class of wisened men & women who are presumed to KNOW “What to say, When, Where & to Whom”.  Hence, a “Learner” (student) ought to be ‘supervised’ by the Learned (matured Faculty) when the former is still learning the art & science of “expression” (which includes ‘dissent’) rather than letting the police to treat him/ her as a ‘hardened criminal’. 

What recently happened in JNU marks the utter failure of University’s Administration & Faculty to handle the entire issue maturely, and the over-zeal of certain political groups to draw a selfish mileage out of it.

P.S.: The Author was a student of the same Centre at JNU in which Mrs. Maneka Gandhi was, at that time, a student -- the Author was a friend of her father (Late Lt Col TS Anand) and also a friend of Late Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Aurora (hero of 1971-War). He was also invited by Mr. Narendra Modi (now India's Prime Minister) to Brain-Storming Meetings of BJP's National Campaign Coordination Committee (IT Cell) for General Elections 2014.