STUDENT AND NATIONALISM: A POLITICAL STALEMATE

'It is not an extension of what happened at JNU last year.Whatever happened at Ramjas must be seen in an independent light'.

The place is the canteen of a reputable institution where I'm having this conversation with a scholar who insists- not all that goes on in the country in academic institutions, must be traced to what happened at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, on the 9th of February, 2016, in the name of protests. Indeed the past year and a bit has indeed been difficult for the academic community in general and more specifically the social sciences community in particular. The entirety of left academia seem to be fighting an uphill task of not only explaining its stance to the majority, but also going about reemphasizing the rhetoric- 'education not merely limited to books, but an emancipatory exercise for humankind as a whole'. It is in this background that the piece looks to contextualize the protests that rocked the Ramjas College campus around the 21st-22nd of February, 2017.

Cultures of Protest: Dissent in Democracy

It is not my intention, to retell the sequence of events in detail as they transpired- rather for the present objective, suffice it to say that problems started once, the Department of English, invited Umar Khalid as one of the speakers for their seminar titled-‘Cultures of Protest’. Of course, the members of the Akhil Baratiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) did not take kindly to this arrangement and forced the cancellation of the event. In retaliation, the students organized a protest march, the next day. It was not to be smooth sailing, as the ABVP once again went on the offensive and clashes were the inevitable result.

Neither is the objective of the piece to present a sequential rendering of the activities that had the University in a frenzied grip for a fortnight but the larger debates about- What is the meaning of education? Who decides the role of the students in society? What may be considered appropriate and inappropriate education? Also, the larger discourse on outlining the contours on nationalism- Who speaks for the nation? Who is a nationalist vis-a-vis and anti-nationalist? These are but some of the questions in an otherwise inexhaustible list concerning the ethics of a society that we as citizens live today.

Perspectives on Education in Indian Society

Quite obviously, the starting point is to put education, as a practice, through the litmus test in the present system. The general tendency amongst the aspirational Indian middle-class taken to be the representative of the entirety of Indian society is by and large to treat education as a means to an end. In other words, the questions that are asked do not center on, for instance, say, on the purpose of a particular lesson. Rather emphasis is laid on, exploring avenues to transform the learning into visible material gains. It must be made clear at this point that I do not at any point, suggest discarding the aforementioned viewpoint. In fact, I understand that for an emerging economy like India, it is imperative that education lead to productive and gainful employment at the earliest possible juncture. However, my divergence of view begins with circumscribing and even relegating education as merely an instrument to further individualism- a culture that fosters a self-centered thought process. In stark contrast to the above, the spirit of inquiry as well as debate was what formed the basis of education in India. In other words, the public culture of India was a product of what the intellectual Amrtya Sen has referred to as an outcome of the tradition of 'heterodoxy'. Education, being an extremely important part in shaping public culture, was probably the most affected by the 'heterodoxical' traditions- the texts that are held up as sacrosanct, were not only a product of debates and discussions but also the very process represented, not just the amenable nature of society to differing opinions, but also the capacity to respect such contrasting viewpoints.

file-page12

file-page11

Universities as Battleground; Students or Soldiers?

Having seen the role and purpose of education in Indian society, the next question to be addressed, takes on the centers of dispensing education- namely the schools and universities. While both these institutions, in their own way contribute towards building social capital for the nation, it is the role of the Universities that has come under close scrutiny in the recent years.To frame a political consciousness takes time. It takes time to weigh the various political alternatives in front, universities that often to help make sense of society- to corroborate theory to practice. In the academic career of a student therefore, it is usually during colleges and universities that both the political consciousness as well as the energy to act on the same is at its highest. To channel whatever is learnt within the walls of the classrooms to praxis is the puzzle that confronts every student- combine that with the mindset of 'I'll change the world' and what you get is indeed a very flammable combination. Thus, it should come as no surprise to find that it is usually the universities become sites for alternative political, social and cultural practices- practices that seek to challenge if not completely subvert the existing structures. It is in this context, that the recent events that have transpired on the campus of Ramjas college must be seen. It is my view that while the events such as these, (including the long standing protests at Jawaharlal Nehru University) are not different in terms of content as well as context. Two competing and contending ideologies, a group of charged students and above all the general perception of fear and intimidation writ large on the body of the academia have all combined to add fuel to the fire. In a nutshell, while addressing issues such such as -vandalism and hooliganism, combating the ever growing threat of intimidation and coercion, asserting the right to free speech and dissent, what must not be lost is the sense of dialogue, the willingness to engage in such situation knowing full well what is at stake.

Nationalism on Campuses; A raging Debate

From the willingness to engage in a dialogue, comes the opportunity to define the nature and scope of extremely important questions- How can the contours of Nationalism be defined? How necessary is it that the epicenter of the debate be the campuses of Universities? Or maybe even the larger question, such as - Is Nationalism for everyone?I must admit that to answer each question above would exhaust a lifetime merely the research involved in the project is enough to demoralize if not scare individuals away from ever attempting to begin unraveling the answers that are gold dust now.However, for the present purpose, the larger objective is to focus on the relationship that the campuses of colleges and universities share with the apparent sacrosanct idea of ‘nationalism’.

To specifically answer the question explicating the relationship between academic pursuits and nationalism- especially at the level of colleges and universities, one needs to revisit the arguments that were made out at the beginning of the article- the tradition of heterodoxy versus that of monopoly. In other words, academic culture by principle- so goes the argument of leading scholars and academicians- must be based on a respectful capacity of disagreement. This is to suggest that while certain views may be antithetical to the interests of those in power, civil practices demand that they be understanding- if not empathetic to the academia. The debate which has a firm grip on student politics therefore, is nothing more than an expression of the denial of perceived rights. Hence, the epicenter of debate assuming the position it has. Delving further, the point raised by Gurmehar Kaur about her loss to the idea of conflict in general and not attributing the same to any 'enemy', thus struck a chord because it precisely struck where the administration is least comfortable in- painting a picture of homogeneity. It is one thing to clamp down on protests that are visible and tangible- a completely different element trying to have to justify to the population the very untenable nature of the position you are seeking. Vilification thus becomes a very important instrument in not merely discrediting any alternative idea the easiest and simplest way to which is the invocation of provocative adjectives and slogans as part of propaganda.

Reclaiming Students' Space

While the state grapples with issues of how to contain the rising tide of discontentment, it provides an excellent opportunity to redefine the very idea of nationalism from ground up. In other words, the adage-’one man’s trash is another man’s treasure’, perfectly sums up the situation.The article has been premised on the belief that nationalism, with the avatar it has taken in India, is not much more than the outlook of a few. The present predicament directly challenges this very strand of thought that has persisted for long. Firstly, and this by my own admission is a difficult thing to achieve, the need is to adopt a non-confrontational attitude against the authorities. In other words, while clashes have become widespread, it is necessary to not let them become the norm. The alternative, more inclusive paradigm that must inform decision making cannot be predicated on violence, clashes and partisan interests. Secondly, there also is the question of educating the masses. At present, the situation is almost as if divided between the students involved in academia and the general taxpayer who has become suspicious of the pursuits within the academic campuses. In the present day, this can be achieved with the help of both the electronic as well as print media and social media has unique role to play here, since it has been the most frequently organized instrument to mobilize the masses.

Finally, the question also lies in sorting out the internal differences i.e. even amongst the student community, there lies a considerable difference in opinion as to what is best for them as a whole. It is of the utmost importance that these issues- that at times can best be described as trivial- are worked out, so that a unified face representing the student community is put up.

Moving Forward: End of Conflict in Sight?

As we have reached the end of our journey, the burning question that has still not been answered is- Will the clashes end anytime soon? My view, and I can only speculate here is that- while differences of opinion were, are and will continue to remain present, the onus is on us to find ways to work together. In other words, the question is not so much about ending the whole culture of confrontation, but bringing it down to manageable levels. While it is most certain that events such as the Ramjas College one has shook up the entire nation throwing wide open the question of the role that students play in a society such as ours. It has also at the same time posed another critical question- that regarding the position of the non-affiliated student in the present day campus politics. In other words, the non-affiliated students may be seen as also uniquely placed in performing some sort of the mediator's role- they may help bridge the gap that remains between a small section of highly politically charged students and that of a trigger happy authority.

To end the essay, then I would like to revisit the statement made at beginning when the scholar insists that the Ramjas issue merits to be seen in a different light- although she was right in asserting the same, through the article it has been my attempt to find common ground among students- not as part of discreet universities, but as part of the academic community at large. While the article may not, and most likely will not serve as a one-stop-shop to all that ails the relationship between academia and polity, it has nonetheless made humble attempts to identify the fissures that encourage such developments. One can only hope that such fissures through time are only mended not magnified.