Commemorating the Martyrdom of Comrade Naveen Babu

Com. Naveen’s life exemplifies the transformation of a student into a revolutionary fighter with the finest communist qualities. Starting his journey on the revolutionary path from JNU in late 1980s, Naveen embraced the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Within a decade he was working among the oppressed adivasis of Eastern Ghats, and laid down his life at Darakonda in Visakhapatnam during a battle with the fascist Andhra Pradesh police on 18 February 2000.

Com. Naveen (Yalavarthi Naveen Babu) was born in a village in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh in a middle peasant family. He completed his graduation in Hyderabad and joined M.A. Sociology in Meerut University in 1984. In 1986 he joined M.Phil course in Sociology in JNU, and after completing his M. Phil. dissertation in 1988 he joined Ph.D. Naveen formed the Student’s Forum, which stood for the exposure of the SFI’s politics of compromise in JNU (Naveen’s book From Varna to Jati based on his M Phil dissertation has been recently published). In 1986, the Delhi Radical Students Organisation (DRSO) was formed. In 1988 he joined the DRSO, and made it a strong political force in the campus. In 1989, when Delhi became the centre for the upper caste anti-Mandal mania, the DRSO swam against the tide, supporting reservations for the OBCs. When there were vacillations amongst many in the revolutionary ranks, Naveen stood like a rock, patiently explaining the necessity for DRSO to support reservations, thereby drawing it closer to the oppressed sections. In 1990, he represented DRSO in the countrywide student body, All India Revolutionary Students’ Federation (AIRSF), taking responsibility for editing its student magazine KALAM. Naveen also played a key role in organising an international seminar on nationality struggles which was held in February ’96. The seminar under the auspices of the All India Peoples’ Revolutionary Forum (AIPRF) played a major role in linking the class struggle with the nationality struggles, giving birth to the Coordination Committee of Struggles of Nationalities and Democratic Movements (CCNDM). This effort of Com. Naveen remains as a strong bridge between the revolutionary and nationality movements.

With an unswerving commitment to revolutionary politics, affectionate behaviour, analytical methodology, a simple living style, forthrightness, and keen study of world literature for establishing socialism of which he dreamt, Com. Naveen never got tired of sharing his knowledge with friends and tirelessly sought to win over intellectuals to the side of revolution. Com. Naveen was known for his simple living habits and forth rightness. He was always ready to make honest self-criticism, showing an eagerness and sincerity to rectify mistakes. He always stood for taking up things critically, not blindly. He stood for fighting against wrong ideas, come what may. He was for principled fight, without any liberalism. Com. Naveen stood for the unity of words and deeds, theory and practice. He was an intellectual, in the tradition of martyrs Christopher Caudwell, David Guest, who laid down their lives in the Spanish Civil War, or Chaganti Bhaskar Rao martyred in the forests of Srikakulam. Com. Naveen blended his pen with the gun and laid down his life fighting the brutal Indian state for a new society free of exploitation and oppression. With all his revolutionary qualities Com. Naveen remains a role model and inspiration for the students and youth. Red Salute to Comrade!

Expose AISA’s Bankrupt & Degenerate Politics! The Fight for JNUSU Elections according to JNUSU Constitution must go on Without any Compromise!!

The GBMs of all the major schools were concluded today, with successful election of the JNU Election Committee. It has been two years since elections in JNU have been stayed. The EC that has been elected consists mainly of new and inexperienced students and the student community must co-operate with this EC in all possible ways so as to help them in conducting the JNUSU elections smoothly.

Our lawyer has already drafted an interim application, which will be filed on Tuesday after the Joint Struggle Committee finalizes on the matter. The issue will take time to be amicably resolved. However, according to the JNUSU constitution, the EC should conduct elections within four weeks of its formation and JNUSU should hand over the charge. The current situation will result into the violation of this provision of the constitution, we urge that this matter must be discussed within the Joint Struggle Committee and collectively resolved.

The filing of interim application, however, was not in the mandate of the UGBM. Yesterday AISA came out with yet another pamphlet trying to whitewash the criticisms we had raised about its resolution and the subsequent shifting of position by them. AISA tried to portray that the debate in the UGBM was not around writ petition and therefore AISA’s change of position is not valid. They also said that it is pointless to bring this matter up since it has already been resolved in the Joint Struggle Committee. We would like to inform the student community that the matter was resolved only when AISA agreed to change their position from writ petition to interim application after the lawyers rubbished the proposal of writ petition. AISA had deliberately put the option of writ petition to delay the possibility of elections. AISA does not want an immediate election as its record of fighting for crucial student’s issues, be it the fight against privatisation of education and fee hike, fight for the full implementation of reservation, worker’s issue or for gender justice, has been nothing but of surrender and compromise. That was the reason why AISA propagated a fear-psychosis in the name of ‘contempt of court’ and tried to persuade the students to support the illogical and counter-productive proposal of filing a writ petition. After their roadmap has been deemed untenable by the lawyers, they quietly changed their position within a JSC meeting, but never clarified their position in public. The Vice President today in the SSS GBM, admitted that it was ‘a mistake’, but AISA organisationally has maintained a deplorable silence. We however are in no illusion that it was not just a mistake of wording but a deliberate attempt by AISA to delay election processes through protracted legal cases.

AISA is accusing us of demeaning the mandate. It is nothing but a lie. We were the first organisation to accept the mandate. We have been part of all the subsequent activities, of meeting our lawyer, seeking other legal opinions and collecting signatures for the appeal to CJI from students. Exposing AISA’s shifting of positions and its cunning politics is NOT undermining the mandate and we shall continue to expose them at every juncture. And everyone knows who has undermined students’ mandate time and again. We will not probe too deep in history but would only like to go back to last year’s struggle against privatisation. The students had given a clear mandate for an assertive movement against the administration to fight its agenda of privatisation. The JNUSU leadership kept dodging the mandate and finally scuttled the movement into a pathetic end!

AISA has raised a lot of noise about how DSU as an ‘elite organisation’ sees students as cattle. AISA clearly did not get what we said. We would like to tell them that it is they who consider students as unthinking cattle and therefore insist that students should come to UGBMs, only during voting and not necessarily to hear the debate. They have learnt the trick well from their predecessor SFI! In all UGBMs the AISA/SFI activists go room to room at the end of the debate to get people for voting. They also use all means to pressurize many students to stand with them in the open voting. The student community (especially the new students) bear vocal evidence of this fact.

We would like to remind AISA that they were in the office of JNUSU because students extended their term. In 2008, despite having four office bearers, all the reports by their conveners were defeated in all the schools. This complete loss of face for AISA in the 2008 School GBMs was an illustration of where their political bankruptcy would lead them Their parent party CPI(ML) Liberation has been thrown into the dustbin of history by the people. If they continue with their bankrupt politics, they are going to face the same fate in JNU!

The fight for JNUSU elections according to JNUSU constitution is far from over. The legal battle asnd political struggle will have to continue till the elections are actually held. The students’ community will have to remain united as well as vigilant against any forces which try to attack or undermine our fight against the reactionary Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and for JNUSU elections according to JNUSU constitution.

AISA-led JNUSU’s attempts to delay the JNUSU elections get exposed! Take forward our collective struggle to hold elections as per the JNUSU Constitution!

It has been more than two years that the Supreme Court has stayed the JNUSU elections with the pretext that we are not in complying with the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. It is needless to say that the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations are an extremely reactionary set of rules which were laid down to facilitate the privatisation of education following the suggestions of the Birla-Ambani Report on education. Behind the smokescreen of combating ‘criminalisation of politics’, these recommendations are particularly targeted to crush political and assertive students’ movements across the country. The JNU students have stood resolutely against these reactionary recommendations and are still fighting an uncompromising battle against it.

Recently the campus saw an intense debate among students on the roadmap of holding JNUSU elections according JNUSU constitution. It culminated into a UGBM where large number of students participated and all of them rejected the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations upholding the JNUSU constitution. On the roadmap of how to conduct elections there was a divide and eventually the resolution that mandated for filing a writ petition to vacate the stay before starting the actual process of elections was passed.

After the UGBM of 9th February the Joint Struggle Committee (JSC) had three meetings to explore various legal options to hold the JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU Constitution. The JSC consulted two lawyers including our own advocate to discuss the pending case and the next course of action. The lawyers however categorically advised against filing writ petition in the court, and asked the JSC to file an Interim Application (IA) immediately, challenging the stay on the JNUSU elections. As the advocates explained, if the JSC files a writ petition to vacate the stay, it will be heard only by the constitution bench, and the matter might take years to get resolved.

In such a context, AISA, which had put the filing of writ petition as the only course of action, must explain to the student community why they had proposed a legally untenable road-map and misguided the students. The lawyers clearly maintained that a writ petition will hamper all possibilities of holding elections immediately. Will it therefore be wrong to conclude that AISA leadership did not want elections to take place soon, and that they deliberately pushed the option of a writ petition and mobilised students around that?

Such an attitude of non-seriousness on the part of JNUSU leadership to take forward the struggle was quite evident from last year itself, when the 11 November judgment questioned Lyngdoh and the way it was imposed. The JNUSU leadership did nothing thereafter, not even calling a JSC meeting for two long months. When the students refused to extend the mandate of the present JNUSU and demanded the immediate holding of the elections as per the JNUSU constitution, AISA-led JNUSU did not dare to seek an extension. AISA does not want an immediate election as its record of fighting for crucial student’s issues, be it the fight against privatisation of education and fee hike, fight for the full implementation of reservation, worker’s issue or for gender justice, has been nothing but of surrender and compromise. That was the reason why AISA propagated a fear-psychosis in the name of contempt of court and tried to persuade the students to support the illogical, regressive and counter-productive proposal of filing a writ petition. Now the process of holding school GBMs to elect the Election Committee is going on, and as per the JNUSU Constitution the EC must complete the election process in a month’s time. JNUSU must tell the students what will the EC do if the Supreme Court takes more than a month to give a judgment on the appeal to vacate the stay, or it gives a negative verdict. Will it not amount to a violation of the JNUSU Constitution in that case?

The lawyers have rejected the option of writ petition and advised to immediately submit an Interim Application to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay. Our advocate also advised the JSC to attach a letter to the IA, addressed to the Chief Justice of India, which will contain an appeal to vacate the stay. The letter should be signed by the entire student community. The JSC has decided to take this letter to the students as a mass signature campaign. We appeal to the students to sign the letter in large numbers to strengthen the application for vacation of stay on our elections.

Statement of Youth and Student Groups from Manila, Phillipines on India's Operation Green Hunt

Dear friends,

We, in the various youth and student groups in the Philippines express our condemnation at the intensifying attacks of the Indian government, starting from the Central government down to the state governments in pursuing the so-called Operation Green Hunt, its counter-insurgency operations purportedly directed primarily against the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

From the start of the Operation it has become clear that the real targets are not the Maoists alone but the resistance of the people of India against the wanton and profit-driven operations of big multinational companies backed by government and its military and police.

It has been reported that intensified militarization in the regions of Orissa, Jharkand, Andra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and in the heroic Lalgarh had further resulted to wider human rights violations. Illegal and unjust arrests, forceful evacuation, torture, rape, and extra-judicial killings are being committed by military, police and paramilitary without hesitation, in full public view and with so much impunity.

The Operation Green Hunt is against the adivasis, farmers, ordinary people especially in the remotest and poorest villages of India. The only crime they have committed is to stand and prevent the profit-driven mining and corporations in its operations which will destroy their livelihood and plunder the environ and India's natural resources.

We condemn the use of the Operation to flush out the adivasis and farmers from their land and government's building of concentration camps of the displaced in order to pursue its Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) with various mining corporations. We demand that these camps be immediately closed.

We demand that the Indian government withdraw heightened military deployment in the countryside and halt its Operation Green Hunt, and balked at pursuing anti-people projects which will only trample upon the basic rights of Indian people.

We support the Indian youth and people in their legitimate resistance against the systematic loot of India's resources which deprive its own people their life and livelihood, and their future.

ANAKBAYAN (Sons and Daughters of the People)

Student Christian Movement of the Philippines

League of Filipino Students (LFS)

Condemn the Authoritarianism of the JNUSU President and AISA’s Lumpenism! Uphold the JNUSU Constitution and our Democratic Tradition!

The crucial UGBM that took place last night to decide on the modalities of holding JNUSU elections according to JNUSU Constitution was arbitrarily ‘called off’ by the JNUSU President in the most undemocratic and high-handed way. The provisions of JNUSU Constitution were flouted by the President in front of hundreds of students by calling off the UGBM rather than adjourning it. The debate took place around two resolutions. The resolution proposed by AISA made filing of a petition in the Supreme Court the central issue. The other resolution supported by many organisations made the issue of immediately initiating the elections as per the JNUSU Constitution rejecting Lyngdoh the central point, which also sought mandate for the Joint Struggle Committee to facilitate this process through all political and legal means. The President first put AISA’s resolution to vote, and the head count yielded an extremely marginal result and a dispute among the counting authorities. So the obvious and very simple demand of recounting was raised. In all cases of either marginal results or disputes recounting is a very commonly practiced process, which is usually followed. In this case, both happened. But the JNUSU President in a dictatorial and undemocratic manner refused to recount despite the count being questioned by students and some JNUSU councilors. If they were so sure of their results why did not they allow a recount?

It was followed by a chaos, perpetrated by the lumpen brigade of AISA, the President also joining the bandwagon. Students were pushed and abused. The President simply denied the other councilor from SLL&CS to even express his point of view in the dispute. His mike was repeatedly snatched by the AISA lumpens like Anurag, Uday, Ravi Prakash and others. In front of hundreds of students even the Vice President tried to assault the councilor from SL.

AISA was thoroughly routed out in the debate throughout the UGBM. They as usual herded people at the end of the debate to pull off the voting. Even after such desperate efforts when there was a problem in counting they simply tried to close the UGBM with utter show of authoritarianism and lumpenism. Such behavour, typical of the right-wing, had disrupted UGBMs in the past. This time however, it came from the organisation which claims itself to be ‘left’ and the upholder of the JNUSU Constitution! Such acts only undermine campus democracy and weaken our struggle to defend our Constitution. The students refused to take such arbitrary action lying low and a spontaneous protest march took place from Jhelum Lawns to Chandrabhaga, in which hundreds of students participated.

We call upon the student’s community to participate in large numbers in the reconvened UGBM which is being called on 9th February, and give a resounding mandate against this kind of lumpen elements and their petty politics of lie and scare mongering. AISA’s resolution of compromise and surrender must be defeated to take forward our struggle for campus democracy, and pass the resolution which mandates the immediate initiation of the elections as per the JNUSU Constitution

Participate in Today's University General Body Meeting in Large Numbers!

AISA has been finally forced to accept the student community’s demand for not extending the term of JNUSU and for immediately initiating the process of conducting JNUSU elections. They tried their best to avoid taking a position on how to implement the call for “immediately initiating the process of conducting JNUSU elections”, and critiqued all positive suggestions for conducting JNUSU elections. They are now saying that “AISA holds that there is simply no alternative for an informed, consensual consultative process so as to lead towards holding JNUSU elections and lifting the Supreme Court stay to defend the JNUSU Constitution” [AISA poster, 5 February]. Were they sleeping for the last three months after the 11 November order of the Supreme Court? We seriously doubt the sincerity and seriousness of this statement, because if they themselves believed in this, the AISA-led JNUSU would have started this process in the last three months itself.

Yesterday ASIA finally managed to bring out a position on this issue, which is nothing but a bunch of blatant compromises and contradictions. AISA’s roadmap makes the starting of the election process contingent on the Supreme Court’s response to the writ petition from the Joint Struggle Committee, which exposes the fact that AISA’s call for ‘immediately initiating the election process’ is nothing but a white lie, a hoax to fool the student community. And if AISA maintains that the JNU students should first plea to the Supreme Court for permitting us to hold elections through a writ petition from the Joint Struggle Committee, and only then proceed with elections after a favourable response, then why did they not initiate this process so far? What was stopping AISA-led JNUSU from initiating the process of filing the petition immediately after the 11 November order?

The central focus of AISA’s resolution is to file a writ petition against the Supreme Court stay. The 25 October 2008 UGBM gave the Joint Struggle Committee the mandate and responsibility to take all the political and legal steps necessary to defend JNUSU Constitution and its election process. The writ petition against the stay, which AISA thinks to be the only means by which the JNUSU elections can be restored, could have been filed in the last three months. This does not require a separate UGBM mandate. By making the filing of the writ petition the central point of their resolution, AISA wants to make the entire election process dependent on the outcome of the writ petition, which exposes their farce of calling for immediate elections.

In addition, AISA has so far been repeating and spreading the lie that going for elections will “automatically” amount to a contempt of court, given the Supreme Court stay on our election process. However, they themselves now propose the formation of Election Committee through school GBMs. Will the formation of EC for the purpose of conducting the JNUSU elections not be an ‘automatic’ and ‘inevitable’ contempt of court in their definition? Or do they hold that the EC has to wait for the Supreme Court’s response to the writ petition before initiating the election process, which will be in violation of the JNUSU Constitution? For AISA-led JNUSU which has mastered the art of flouting the UGBM mandates through clever manipulations, this might be an option. But the student community will not accept such opportunism and betrayal of their political and democratic aspirations.

We believe that constitution of the EC and the starting of the election process need not necessarily invite an intervention from the court. In case such a situation arises, the student community must deliberate and collectively find out the next course of action. But AISA must understand that any act of taking forward our struggle may be interpreted as a contempt of court, and we cannot resign to our fate fearing the possibility of contempt. After all, what wrong did the students of JNU do to invite a stay order on the JNUSU elections in 2008? JNUSU election has been one of the most democratic models of student union election in the entire country, and yet the Supreme Court stayed our elections. AISA has not understood the fact that it was precisely because we had such a progressive, democratic election model and Constitution that the Lyngdoh was imposed and our elections stayed.

In the present times when all the voices of dissent and people’s rights have been crushed by the powers-that-be, upholding any progressive or democratic position becomes the biggest crime. We need not do anything wrong to invite the contempt of court; the simple act of speaking out against the violation of our democratic rights is enough for such contempt. In fact, upholding the JNUSU Constitution and rejecting Lyngdoh in JNU through the UGBM of 25th October 2008 could have been a contempt of court. The decision of the students of JNU to extend the term of JNUSU repeatedly as a mode of continuing our struggle and upholding our constitution could have been a contempt of court. Going to India Gate in protest against Lyngdoh and the Supreme Court stay could have been a contempt of court. The fact that there was no contempt order for these acts shows the strength of our collective democratic struggle against Lyngdoh. In the name of contempt of court, ASIA is shrewdly trying to deviate the student community from the path of struggle towards a path of compromise and surrender.

In the present context, after a sustained struggle led by the JNU students inside and outside the court, the Supreme Court itself has questioned the constitutional validity of Lyngdoh committee recommendations and the manner in which it was imposed in the entire country. Our collective struggle and uncompromising position against Lyngdoh was vindicated when in its order of 11 November 2009, the Supreme Court observed:

● “The interim order of this Court dated 22nd September, 2006, prima facie, amounts to judicial legislation and the question before us is whether this is legally permissible. I am prima facie of the opinion that it is not.”

● “It is for the Legislature or the concerned authorities to make a law accepting the [Lyngdoh] Report in toto or accepting it in part, or not accepting it at all but it is not for the Court to pass judicial orders for implementations of the recommendations by the Committee.”

● “Whether Article 19 (1)(c) and other fundamental rights are being violated when restrictions are being placed by the implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee report without authority of law.”

Thus, the constitutional validity of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, the manner in which it was imposed, as well as the stay on the JNUSU elections is now in question. Even the lawyer representing the JNUS student community holds that there is no logic behind the continuation of the stay on the elections, and that it was unfortunate that the stay was not vacated in the last hearing itself. This itself is a significant step forward for the progressive student movement of the country, which AISA has been denying so far. Had we stopped fighting in fear of contempt of court, this could have never been achieved. By intimating the process of elections upholding the JNUSU Constitution and rejecting Lyngdoh, what we are struggling to win back is a long cherished democratic tradition, and to take our struggle for our democratic rights a step forward , while AISA is trying its best to maintain the present status-quo in the name of contempt and consultation.

In such a context, DSU appeals to the student community to come out in large numbers to participate in tonight’s UGBM to defeat AISA’s devious resolution, and to pass a resolution which gives a resounding mandate to the JNUSU to initiate the process of elections as per the JNUSU Constitution and not by the Lyngdoh Recommendations. GBMs should be convened in all schools to form the JNUSU Election Committee. JNUSU should hand over charge to the Election Committee within three weeks which will conduct the JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU Constitution. The Joint Struggle Committee will facilitate this process through all legal and political means.

Expose and Defeat AISA’s Devious, Opportunist and Compromised Position! Join UGBM to Take Forward the Struggle for our Democratic Rights!

After sustained pressure, AISA had to concede to the student community’s demand for not extending the term of JNUSU and for immediately initiating the process of conducting JNUSU elections. After weeks of beating around the bush and critiquing all positive suggestions for conducting JNUSU elections, it has finally managed to bring out a ‘clear-cut’ position on this issue yesterday, which is nothing but a bunch of blatant compromises and contradictions. Though AISA’s resolution talks of starting the election process “immediately” and forming the Election Committee (EC) through school GBMs “within a short fixed time”, it does not mention any timeframe. Not mentioning a timeframe gives it enough scope to manipulate and delay the process according to its own convenience, in the name of consultations and consensus. If AISA thinks that consensus is indeed necessary, why did it not start this process after the 11 November hearing?

AISA’s roadmap makes the starting of the election process contingent on the Supreme Court’s response to the writ petition from the Joint Struggle Committee, which exposes the fact that AISA’s call for ‘immediately initiating the election process’ is nothing but a white lie, a hoax to fool the student community. And if AISA maintains that the JNU students should first plea to the Supreme Court for permitting us to hold elections through a writ petition from the Joint Struggle Committee, and only then proceed with elections after a favourable response, then why did they not initiate this process so far? What was stopping AISA-led JNUSU from initiating the process of filing the petition immediately after the 11 November order? Do they need a UGBM mandate even to file a prayer to the Supreme Court?

In addition, AISA has so far been repeating and spreading the lie that going for elections will “automatically” amount to a contempt of court, given the Supreme Court stay. However, they themselves now propose the formation of Election Committee through school GBMs. Will the formation of EC for the purpose of conducting the JNUSU elections not be an ‘automatic’ and ‘inevitable’ contempt of court in their definition? Or do they hold that the EC has to wait for the Supreme Court’s response to the writ petition before initiating the election process, which will be in violation of the JNUSU Constitution? For AISA-led JNUSU which has mastered the art of flouting the UGBM mandates through clever manipulations, this might be an option. But the student community will not accept such opportunism and betrayal of their democratic aspirations.

We believe that constitution of the EC and the starting of the election process need not necessarily invite an intervention from the court. In case such a situation arises, the student community must deliberate and collectively find out the next course of action. But AISA must understand that any act of taking forward our struggle may be interpreted as a contempt of court, and we cannot resign to our fate fearing the possibility of contempt. After all, what wrong did the students of JNU do to invite a stay order on the JNUSU elections in 2008? JNUSU election has been one of the most democratic models of student union election in the entire country, and yet the Supreme Court stayed our elections. AISA has not understood the fact that it was precisely because we had such a progressive, democratic election model and Constitution that the Lyngdoh was imposed and our elections stayed. In the present times when all the voices of dissent and people’s rights have been crushed by the powers-that-be, upholding any progressive or democratic position becomes the biggest crime. We need not do anything wrong to invite the contempt of court; the simple act of speaking out against the violation of our democratic rights is enough for such contempt. In fact, upholding the JNUSU Constitution and rejecting Lyngdoh in JNU through the UGBM of 25th October 2008 could have been a contempt of court. The decision of the students of JNU to extend the term of JNUSU repeatedly as a mode of continuing our struggle could have been a contempt of court. Going to India Gate in protest against Lyngdoh and the Supreme Court stay could have been a contempt of court. The fact that there was no contempt order for these acts shows the strength of our collective democratic struggle against Lyngdoh. In the name of contempt of court, ASIA is shrewdly trying to deviate the student community from the path of struggle towards a path of compromise and surrender.

In the present context, after a sustained struggle led by the JNU students inside and outside the court, the Supreme Court itself has questioned the constitutional validity of Lyngdoh committee recommendations and the manner in which it was imposed in the entire country. This fact itself is a significant step forward for the progressive student movement of the country, which AISA has been denying so far. Had we stopped fighting in fear of contempt of court, this victory could have never been achieved. Through elections, what we are struggling to uphold and win back is a long cherished democratic tradition, and to take our struggle for our democratic rights a step forward , while AISA is trying its best to maintain the present status-quo in the name of contempt and consultation. Therefore DSU appeals to the student community to come out in large numbers to participate in tonight’s UGBM to defeat AISA’s devious resolution, and pass a resounding mandate for the JNUSU to initiate the process of elections as per the JNUSU Constitution and not by the Lyngdoh Recommendations. GBMs should be convened in all schools to form the JNUSU Election Committee. JNUSU should hand over charge to the Election Committee within three weeks which will conduct the JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU Constitution. The Joint Struggle Committee will facilitate this process through all legal and political means.

Reject Lyngdoh! Defeat Bankrupt AISA’s Politics of Status-Quo! Unite to Conduct Elections Upholding the JNUSU Constitution!

On the question of holding JNUSU elections there has been a lot of confusion, much of which has been deliberately propagated by AISA over the last few days through their pamphlets, posters, and whisper campaigns. But even AISA is forced to recognise that the time has come to initiate the process of holding the JNUSU elections in the coming UGBM. AISA, which has so far been most reluctant to go for elections, has come to realize that “holding election is a very genuine need as well as sentiment of the entire student community” [pamphlet dated 31.1.2010]. We want to make it clear to AISA that holding the JNUSU election is not merely a sentimental issue, but it is our democratic right and an expression of the political aspirations of the student community, which was strongly articulated by the successful Mashaal Juloos of 31st January night.

AISA’s political bankruptcy and duplicity: It is difficult to understand AISA’s position on the entire issue. On the one hand it is reluctantly talking of initiating the process of holding elections in the upcoming UGBM and on the other hand they are strongly arguing that it is not possible because there is a stay on our elections by the Supreme Court. Is AISA suggesting that the only option in front of us is to accept the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations? AISA is indulging in scare-mongering by predicting an impending contempt of court followed by a crackdown if we hold our elections as per the JNUSU constitution. It seems to us that AISA leadership has forgotten the basics of student politics and has hired a third rate astrologer to seek advise.

AISA is shouting from the roof top that the process of holding elections must involve broader consultation with former JNUSU CECs, former JNUSU office bearers, teachers as well as lawyers. Nobody is saying that we should not involve them. Firstly, we would like to ask AISA, why the delay in this consultation since the last court hearing was on 11th November? Does this not point to their agenda of maintaining the status-quo by delaying any concrete step towards holding elections? We firmly believe that the process of consultation with these sections must be geared towards mobilizing their opinion in favor of our position of holding the elections according to JNUSU constitution. But what AISA is arguing is that we must consult these sections and formulate our position according to their opinion. This position of AISA leadership is politically regressive and dangerous for the process of holding elections in JNU. We want to ask them one simple question- what will be AISA’s position if majority of teachers, lawyers, former JNUSU CECs advise us to hold elections according to Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations? We sincerely advise AISA leadership to also have some faith in student community and in their political and democratic aspirations and their successful struggles against Lyngdoh recommendations so far.

The way forward for starting the process for holding elections: We propose that to take forward for our collective struggle for upholding the JNUSU Constitution and for restoring campus democracy, a resolution in the upcoming UGBM is passed whereby we resolve to conduct the JNUSU elections according to its Constitution within this semester, while at the same time informing the Supreme Court about our decision.

The process of holding elections should begin by holding school GBMs and electing Election Committee members as per the JNUSU Constitution, while at the same time sending a letter to the Supreme Court informing it about the student community’s decision to go for elections. In this letter, we may mention the following broad arguments, that the constitutional validity of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations has been questioned by the 11th November 2009 order of the Supreme Court along with the manner in which it has been imposed (“The interim order of this Court dated 22nd September,2006, prima facie, amounts to judicial legislation and the question before us is whether this is legally permissible. I am prima facie of the opinion that it is not.” –Justice Markanday Katju in Supreme Court order of 11th Nov. 2009). The election model of JNU has been praised by the Lyngdoh Committee itself, and the amicus curiae has also appreciated it subsequently. Due to the stay, we have not been able to hold our elections for the last two years, which is a grave violation of our fundamental rights. This has been recognised by the Supreme Court in its last judgment, when the question was raised “Whether Article 19 (1)(c) and other fundamental rights are being violated when restrictions are being placed by the implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee report without authority of law” (Supreme Court order of 11th Nov. 2009). These questions now await resolution in a higher constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.

Since the constitutional validity of the entire Lyngdoh Committee recommendation and the manner of its implementation is now in question, after starting the process of elections and simultaneously informing the court about it, there is a strong possibility that the court will not intervene in our democratic election process. In case the court does intervene, it will open up an opportunity for our lawyer to challenge the continuing stay on our elections once again. Our lawyer expressed his opinion to the Joint Struggle Committee in their last meeting in December 2009 that there is no logic behind the continuation of the stay on our elections, and that it was unfortunate that the stay was not vacated in the last hearing itself. This process will break the present impasse and take our struggle one step closer to restore our electionsupholding the JNUSU Constitution. AISA should seriously consider this course of action and join the student community as it prepares itself to take the ongoing struggle forward, rather than creating more hurdles in the process.

Do not extend the JNUSU’s term in this UGBM! Reject Lyngdoh in JNU! Hold JNUSU election according to our Constitution!

The JNUSU elections were stayed in 2008 by the Supreme Court citing the violation of Lyngdoh recommendations in our elections. Lyngdoh committee recommendations came into force all over the country from 22nd September 2006 onwards, when through a highly undemocratic and arbitrary order, the Supreme Court made it mandatory for conducting student union elections. In 2006 and 2007, the JNU administration sent letters to the JNUSU asking the students to conduct elections in compliance with Lyngdoh. However, the JNUSU, all the organisations and the student community at large did not agree to follow these recommendations, and conducted elections as per the JNUSU Constitution for two years. It was only in 2008 that the court intervened and stayed the elections.

In the last two years, we have witnessed a series of blatant attacks by the pro-market and casteist administration on our basic rights. There are attempts to privatise basic facilities (user charges and electricity meters), fee hikes (increase in the prospectus fee), a blatant denial of reservations in student and faculty intake, withdrawal of hostel subsidies. This is a clear proof of the fact that Lyngdoh is nothing but a ploy to crush the progressive student’s movement and to facilitate the sell-out of higher educational institutions to corporate interests.

The last two year’s consistent and uncompromising struggle by the JNU students against the imposition of draconian and highly undemocratic Lyngdoh Committee recommendations on the JNUSU elections has recently led to some positive results. In its last hearing the Court has questioned the very constitutional validity of Lyngdoh, and the order by the supreme court judge Arijit Pasayat on 22nd September 2006 to enforce these guidelines on student union elections all over the country. Since the court felt that the imposition of Lyngdoh has violated the fundamentals of justice, the case has now been referred to a Constitution bench to review the whole matter.

In its judgment of 11th November 2009, the Supreme Court judge Markanday Katju said: “the interim order of this Court dated 22nd September, 2006, prima facie, amounts to judicial legislation and the question before us is whether this is legally permissible. I am prima facie of the opinion that it is not.” According to the Court’s observation, it was wrong for the supreme court to make the Lyngdoh recommendations legally binding, and should have left it to the Parliament to make the laws pertaining to student union elections, if necessary. Questioning the manner in which Pasayat passed the judgment in 2006, Katju observed that “It is for the Legislature or the concerned authorities to make a law accepting the [Lyngdoh] Report in toto or accepting it in part, or not accepting it at all but it is not for the Court to pass judicial orders for implementations of the recommendations by the Committee.” Furthermore, the Lyngdoh recommendation’s constitutional validity has also been questioned by the Supreme Court, and one of the questions the constitution bench will now decide is to “Whether Article 19 (1)(c) and other fundamental rights are being violated when restrictions are being placed by the implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee report without authority of law.” It is clear that the entire process of imposing Lyngdoh through a court order is now in question, since prima facie has violated the fundamental rights and autonomy of institutions, and amounts to judicial legislation. This is a great victory, the ramifications of which is not only crucial for JNU but for the entire progressive student’s movement in the country. This victory has been achieved not only through the battle inside the courts, but primarily through the agitation and mobilisation outside which forced the court to revisit Lyngdoh and its imposition.

The student movement in the campus is in a crucial juncture today. The students of JNU have considered the continuation of the last elected JNUSU in office as a means of our collective struggle against the onslaught Lyngdoh. The students have therefore repeatedly extended JNUSU of 2007 unanimously through successful UGBMs, and reposed trust in its leadership despite the organisations like YFE, ABVP and NSUI calling it illegal. However the AISA-led JNUSU has over the last two years have utterly compromised on every issue and betrayed the trust reposed on it by the students. The AISA-led JNUSU has opportunistically justified the non-fulfillment of OBC reservations by the administration, claiming that there was an increase of seats under reservations whereas there was a seat-cut in reality. They have allowed the fee hike in prospectus price, and compromised on the demand for removal of electricity meters from Koyna Hostel even after students mobilised in numbers unprecedented in the history of JNU’s student movement. They have betrayed the struggle against the retrenchment of 70 contract workers last year, and stood against our struggle for gender justice by defending a faculty member guilty of sexual harassment who used to be one of AISA activists. This has led to a situation where the students’ movement in JNU stands considerably weakened and because of these compromises administration has upper-hand, culminating into a stalemate situation. The present JNUSU leadership must be made answerable to the students through an election and a process must be underway where the administration is forced to acknowledge JNUSU, as the representative of the student community.

There are two possible courses of action in front of the student community at this present juncture. First, we have an option in holding the election according to the Lyngdoh committee recommendation and thereby undermining the JNUSU constitution and delegitimizing the student struggle in JNU against Lyngdoh, going on for last two years. Second option which we believe is the way ahead is to initiate the process of conducting the elections within this semester, so that we can take our struggle to hold JNUSU election according to our constitution. There will be hurdles ahead in holding our elections; we have to fight those hurdles politically and legally with the active participation of the students. Our past two-years experience only proves that it cannot be a legal battle only. Therefore starting the process of holding election is in itself a political step forward, which we believe also expedite the legal battle in the court.