New Delhi: Police on Monday reached the sprawling Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus in search of a student who went missing over two months ago.
Crime Branch personnel searched different parts of the campus with sniffer dogs in a desperate bid to find out what happened to Najeeb, whose disappearance had led to unending protests in the university.
A police officer said Najeeb’s hostel, classrooms, rooftops and other deserted places were scanned.
“A search operation is on in various parts of the JNU campus to get clues which can help police locate Najeeb,” Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) Ravindra Yadav said.
The search began as police have been unable to get any trace of the missing Najeeb, who went missing on 15 October following a scuffle the previous night with members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarti Parishad (ABVP). The ABVP has denied any involvement in Najeeb’s disappearance.
Police have raised the reward amount for providing information that could help locate Najeeb from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh.
The Delhi High Court has directed the police to scan the entire JNU campus.
The court said the police were also free to search Jamia Millia Islamia where Najeeb was reportedly dropped by an auto-rickshaw driver after he left from JNU campus.
First Published On : Dec 19, 2016 16:11 IST
New Delhi: The Jawaharlal Nehru Students Union (JNUSU) on Thursday promised “full cooperation” to police search on the campus to trace MSc student Najeeb Ahmed who went missing two months back after a scuffle allegedly with ABVP affiliated students.
“JNUSU will extend its full cooperation in finding Najeeb. Delhi High Court’s direction to the Delhi police to search the university campus accommodation, ad-block, and the green areas using sniffer dogs, has long been a demand of JNUSU,” president of the students union Mohit Pandey said in a statement.
The Delhi High Court today directed the police to “scan” the entire campus, including hostels, classrooms and rooftops, of the varsity by using sniffer dogs. The court also asked Delhi Police to take all necessary steps without further loss of time to trace Najeeb, saying there has been delay in recording statements of some students suspected of thrashing him a day before his disappearance. Pandey said that, the Delhi police should have done this right in the beginning when they could not find Najeeb.
“JNUSU has been pointing out this lapse on the part of Delhi police even in its submission to the petition in the Court. We appeal to everyone to please cooperate with the High Court directions and in our struggle to find Najeeb” he said. Najeeb disappeared after scuffle with alleged ABVP students at his hostel.
First Published On : Dec 15, 2016 09:11 IST
‘Missing’ is writ large at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus. A 27-year-old student Najeeb Ahmad has been missing for almost two months now, after an alleged scuffle with some other students. Mother, sister, friends and fellow students of Najeeb have been protesting at the JNU campus, at Jantar Mantar, Mandi House and anywhere they can.
In last two months, a number of posters of Najeeb has increased inside JNU campus and around Delhi and so has the reward to find him.
As the days passed, following Najeeb’s disappearance, a spree of allegations and counter-allegations was made by the Left and the Right in JNU campus against each other, following which, the police swung into action. Police teams were dispatched to Bihar and other places and news of Najeeb being spotted in Aligarh surfaced.
But among all this what was most intriguing was the manner in which Najeeb disappeared, like smoke.
Now a press release by JNU administration (issued on 8 December) has tried to put the record straight in the case: Of the alleged scuffle between the two groups in Mahi‐Mandovi hostel on 14 October after which Najeeb disappeared without informing anyone. Just two days to go and it will be a full two months since he disappeared.
The 8 December press release issued by the JNU administration is conclusive in its judgement about the incident. In an attempt to put the record straight, the JNU administration has shunned the logic. It reads, “The Office of the Chief Proctor has submitted its Proctorial Enquiry Report on the incident of Mahi‐Mandovi Hostel. The report has identified the students involved in the reported scuffle, and has recommended their immediate transfer from their present hostel. It has also recommended that a strong warning should be issued to these students against repeating such scuffle in future.”
It adds, “The Vice‐chancellor has approved the report and has suggested that after Najeeb Ahmed is found, the disciplinary action awarded by the Warden’s Committee for vacating hostel premises by Mr. Ahmed may be revisited.”
And it concludes, “The JNU Administration appeals to Mr. Najeeb Ahmed, M.Sc. student of Biotechnology, to return to university and resume academic pursuits without apprehensions.”
The Delhi High Court on 28 November, while listening the plea on Najeeb’s disappearance asked the Delhi police to “cut across all political barriers” to find Najeeb and said that there could be “something more” to his disappearance as no one can just vanish from the heart of the national capital.
The court further stated, “This is the heart of India, the national capital. No one can just disappear from here. It creates a sense of insecurity in people. If he disappeared, then there is something more to that. All angles have to be explored. Forty five days is a long period for someone to be underground.”
While the court’s observation was reflective of genuine concern, the straightness of the press statement issued by JNU administration on 8 December has twisted all the logic.
Consider this: In plain term, it states that those allegedly involved in the scuffle have been identified. And like the intimidating bullies we all face in schools, they were punished by changing their seats (read hostel).
Also, the JNU administration through its appeal to Najeeb to come back has decided and made it clear that he has gone missing on his own and steers clear of any foul play.
In this absurd play where a man disappears without any trace, there are many questions that remain unanswered.
A press note titled Summary & update of the Events ‐Mahi‐Mandovi Hostel issued by JNU, states that according to the warden’s report, the incident took place during the election campaign for members of the hostel committee. A student, Vikrant Kumar, went to canvass and when he knocked at the door of Najeeb Ahmed was slapped without any provocation in the presence of in presence of two other students. The warden has relied on the version of two people who accompanied Vikrant for canvassing. The warden’s report does not mention the testimony of any neutral eyewitness.
The second big question is that how JNU’s proctorial inquiry has assumed that Najeeb has been hiding or gone missing on his own, hence making an appeal to him to return.
The third big question that raises a major concern is that how can a student be in hiding for so long. How come the entire police administration (receiving direct direction from the home minister of the country) is unable to trace a 27-year-old student?
There is rising concern for Najeeb, that is now cutting across party and ideological lines. ABVP member Saurabh Sharma and former Joint Secretary of JNUSU too calls for looking “beyond narrow interests and making all efforts should be made towards finding Najeeb”.
“Almost two months have passed since a bizarre incident of slapping followed by Najeeb’s disappearance took place in JNU. SIT and then Crime Branch of Delhi Police have tried hard to find out Najeeb’s whereabouts, but all in vain. Given the situation that a student has disappeared right from the heart of the capital, questions must be raised about the efficacy of Delhi Police. A police force that has successfully busted organised crimes of international order in the past seems too helpless in this case. Is it really that tough to trace a student or is it a deliberate attempt on the part of Delhi Police to take it too lightly? The nature of politicking that has occurred in the periphery of the event also speaks volumes regarding the special nature of Najeeb’s disappearance,” says Sharma.
He adds, “Having said that, one must not forget that all that matters is a human life, the complexity of which is hard to fathom. Medical reports suggest that Najeeb was under depression and was receiving proper treatment. Thus, there is all possibility that he might have escaped for psychological reasons. If it’s so, still the police should have found him out by now. Hence, one must focus on the fact that between politics and concerns of individual life, Najeeb’s life and career is at stake. Let’s look beyond our narrow interests and channelise all efforts toward finding out Najeeb.”
As rightly pointed out by Sharma the inability of the Delhi police in tracing Najeeb raises serious questions on its ability and intent. The same press note mentioned above states that, “On 17th November 2016, the administration came to know about the police (Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime) investigation stating that they have traced the driver of the auto‐rickshaw who Ahmed hired on October 15 from Jawaharlal Nehru University to reach the campus of Jamia Millia Islamia, as reported in the newspapers.”
A month has now passed since police got this input but no breakthrough has been made in the case. Given the fact that police has been slammed by the court for its inability to find Najeeb, it is only in the former’s interest to find him. And its inability to find a 27-year-old student can be due to two reasons: Because of complete ineptness of police that cannot trace a student and a probability of some unfortunate incident that had struck Najeeb.
While the former can only be a matter of embarrassment for police, the possibility of the latter coming true can seriously change the narrative of the student politics in India’s one of the best universities.
First Published On : Dec 12, 2016 17:58 IST
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday slammed the police for remaining clueless about missing Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Najeeb Ahmed, who has remained untraced for 55 days, asking how can a man just “vanish suddenly”.
Maintaining that it was concerned with the recovery of the boy whose mother has been running from pillar to post to be united with her son, the Court said a situation, in which a missing person has not been traced for over 50 days, would create a sense of insecurity among the people.
“It is over 50 days. Still you (police) do not know about his whereabouts. How can somebody vanish suddenly and police has no clue about it? Even if we think of the worst, something has to be found out. We are pained that the missing person has not been traced till date,” a bench of Justice G S Sistani and Justice Vinod Goel said.
Najeeb went missing from JNU’s Mahi-Mandvi hostel on 15 October allegedly after an on-campus scuffle between him and some members of the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). The ABVP has denied involvement in his disappearance.
The bench said, “We are not concerned with the scuffle. We only want that the boy is recovered and he returns to his house. We are concerned that the mother should get her child.”
The court’s oral observation came after the police and the JNU informed it that Najeeb has remained untraceable till date and they were making all efforts to locate him.
The varsity and the police were responding to the habeus corpus plea filed by Najeeb’s 45-year old mother Fatima Nafees who was also present in the court today. She has sought directions to the authorities to trace her 27-year-old son who was pursuing MSc in Biotechnology from JNU.
During the brief hearing, senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra, appearing for the police, told the bench that the Crime Branch was exploring all angles to trace Najeeb and even issued advertisements. “We are diligent, We will do whatever is to be done at our level,” Mehra said.
On the other hand, JNU’s counsel Monika Arora submitted before that “since day one, the university is in regular contact with the Delhi police obtaining updates and providing relevant information to the police regarding the incident.
“It is also stated that university has carried out its own search operation in the hostel and the campus of the JNU. Moreover, the security guards alongwith police teams have been coordinating in search of Najeeb in the adjoining and adjacent forest areas of the JNU campus,” Arora said, adding that “the university’s Vice Chancellor has written to the senior police officials and SHO concerned to expedite the search of missing student Najeeb”.
To this, the bench said, “this is something very serious. If a person disappears and remains untraced, it would create a sense of insecurity in the public of the city.”
The bench asked the police to “explore all angles” and listed the matter for further hearing on 14 December .
Arora, in a status report, said soon after the incident, the hostel warden had called a meeting including Najeeb and other persons involved in the altercation.
“All persons involved in the altercation including Najeeb were called by the warden, some disciplinary measures were taken after Najeeb admitted his mistake for initiating the brawl/altercation with his fellow students. The said issue was resolved in presence of JNUSU President and other college staff and students,” JNU submitted.
It also told the bench that the students involved in the scuffle on the fateful night have been identified and their immediate transfer from the hostel was recommended.
The counsel said the office of the Chief Proctor has acknowledged that there was a scuffle and submitted the Proctorial Board report on the incident at the hostel.
“After Najeeb is found, the disciplinary action awarded to these persons will be again looked into,” the court was told.
On 28 November , the High Court had sternly asked the city police to “cut across all political barriers” and find Najeeb.
First Published On : Dec 9, 2016 18:56 IST
New Delhi: Delhi Police’s investigation into the mysterious disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed has hit a roadblock as the administration of Jamia Millia Islamia, where he was reportedly last seen, is allegedly not cooperating in the probe.
On Wednesday, the Crime Branch team had revealed that it has traced an auto driver who said he had dropped Najeeb at Jamia Millia Islamia.
However, sources privy to the probe said the Jamia administration hasn’t shared the CCTV footage. “They aren’t cooperating with us. They haven’t yet shared the CCTV footage with us,” a source said.
Jamia authorities claimed that they have been cooperative in the probe. “They have approached us and we are cooperating with police in every possible way,” Jamia spokesperson said. Police had also said that Najeeb had hailed the auto himself and he wasn’t accompanied by anyone when he left the JNU campus thereby ruling out the theory that he was kidnapped.
On Wednesday, Delhi Police Commissioner Alok Kumar Verma also approved the increase in the reward amount from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh owing to the “sensitivity” of the matter. Najeeb had gone missing on 15 October following an on-campus scuffle allegedly with ABVP members the night before.
Meanwhile, JNU Students Union President Mohit Pandey took to Twitter requesting an appointment with Vice Chancellor Jagadesh Kumar to seek a status report on Najeeb’s case. “Since our VC is only active on Twitter, we are tweeting to seek an appointment with him,” he said.
JNUSU General Secretary Satarupa Chakraborty tweeted, “Dear VC @mamidala90, we are waiting for your reply as JNUSU seeks urgent appointment.”
JNU students and teachers have been leading a movement alleging inaction on administration and Delhi Police’s part in tracing the missing student.
First Published On : Nov 18, 2016 12:04 IST
Former Supreme Court (SC) judge Markanday Katju, in a Facebook post on Monday, urged the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students protesting the inaction following the disappearance of fellow student Najeeb Ahmed, to file a petition before the SC to further the investigation.
Katju asked the students to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, thereby forcing the Delhi Police, that falls under the jurisdiction of the Central government, into action. Najeeb has been missing for the past 24 days, following an alleged quarrel between two student groups in the university.
One of the writ petitions available to citizens under Article 32, for enforcement of their fundamental rights, is Habeas Corpus. Under this right, the court can issue appropriate directives to the police authorities to make serious efforts in finding the missing student.
The protest, led by the JNU Student Union (JNUSU), has been not been effective enough, owing to the insensitive approach employed by the Delhi police. On Monday morning, pictures of the police dragging Fatima Nafees, Najeeb’s mother, into a bus along with other protesting students were splashed on the front page of many national dailies.
It is truly perplexing how the Delhi Police, which was so efficient in curbing these protests, has failed to find the missing student till now.
In an interview with Firstpost, former JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, while responding to a question on why this issue had not received the same support from the student community as his arrest had.
“This time around, there are many versions of the issue. My arrest was seen as a crackdown and an attack on the university, and that united the students. On this particular issue, the current student union has not been able to forge a unity,” Kanhaiya said.
Responding to the protestors’ allegations that Najeeb had been abducted and ‘harmed’ by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) members, Kumar said, “I don’t think so. This is not the culture of JNU. There is a difference between ABVP of JNU and ABVP of other campuses.”
He added, “The fact that some outsiders were also involved in the alleged scuffle is an important aspect and if some untoward incident took place because of their involvement, I cannot say.”
Saurabh Sharma, former member of JNUSU, said, “We too are concerned about Najeeb’s safety but what is happening here is politics. I am not condoning the police action against Najeeb’s mother but the police has to maintain the law and order. She is being misled by the Left parties. What is the need to drag her in these protests? She should rather meet the Delhi Police Commissioner and people like Katju, who are trying to help her.”
The JNU administration has been persistently making appeals to the protesting students to maintain peace but 24 days is too long a period for just appeals to work. This has led to a growing discontent that can easily be felt in the campus.
Since Najeeb’s disappearance, all stakeholders have acted irresponsibly, overlooking options that would have actually borne results. On 19 October, JNU vice-chancellor M Jagdeesh Kumar and other top university officials were confined in their office for an entire day by the protesting students. Following that, the Delhi Police has stopped every protest by the students, creating even more discontent.
Adding to this, the JNU administration, on 26 October 26, issued a 25-point bulletin detailing the timeline of the case and the actions taken – which was quickly marked as ‘biased’ by the students and teachers alike.
According to an Indian Express report, the varsity’s teachers association criticised the administration for “selectively omitting” the fact that he was attacked during a brawl, the night before he went missing.
Ayesha Kidwai, a professor at JNU, wrote in a Facebook post, “At the heart of the matter is who committed the violence on 14 October. By the warden’s report on 15 October, it was only Najeeb, who is said to have admitted his mistake of striking a fellow student without any provocation,”
“Just yesterday, 83 teachers of JNU had pointed that out in a context that Najeeb had been allegedly beaten (as per several eyewitnesses who have also lodged a complaint)…such an admission of culpability cannot be said to have been made in free and fair conditions,” Kidwai said in her post.
She added, “This bulletin clearly indicates that the JNU administration is still proceeding with the ‘Najeeb-as-accused’ narrative. It has completely suppressed all reference to the contents of the wardens’ letter of 16 October and takes no cognisance of the fact that eyewitnesses have clearly named the alleged perpetrators of violence and abuse against Najeeb. However, there is no mention at all of the counter allegations throughout the report; indeed if anything, the aim of the whole exercise seems to be to avoid naming them. Indeed, even the terms of reference of its own proctorial enquiry have been vaguely worded.”
While the ABVP is being accused of ‘hurting’ Najeeb, its supporters are stressing that he has been hidden by some professors and students, who want to take political advantage of this incident.
While such claims cannot be verified, it just hints at the intense polarisation of the discourse in the campus, where the question that who did it to Najeeb has become more important than what actually happened to him.
It was a surreal scene.
On 23 October, at a distance of a foot or so from the vice-chancellor’s gate, the mother of missing JNU student Najeeb Ahmad broke down in tears. Pleading for her son back, she left the gathered crowd looking on in complete silence. They had no answers for her, only vows of solidarity. Students, teachers, and security guards all bore mute witness to this sad culmination of Najeeb’s unexplained absence, which is fast gaining disturbing undertones.
Fresh off the heels of a ‘scuffle’ during which he allegedly slapped a fellow student at the Mahi-Mandavi hostel, he was allegedly thrashed by around 10 people at the same hostel, reportedly in front of the warden. At some point after this, he made a call to his mother in Badaun, telling her what had transpired, and mysteriously disappeared the day after. The campus took its own time to erupt, and it was days before the student body eventually accosted the administration. Nearly two weeks since Najeeb’s disappearance, gheraos, hoarse throats and a human chain later, nothing has changed. A student is missing from the university and there are all kinds of possibilities.
Najeeb was allegedly beaten up by a group comprising of mostly BJP-affiliated ABVP cadre and sympathisers on 14 October at around 11.30 pm. It is unclear as to whether the issue of religious identity was even a factor in all this. At this time, only speculation is possible and all angles need consideration. With every passing day (it is now 12 days) that Najeeb remains untraceable, theories are increasing in number and getting darker, without any new information to prove or debunk anything.
There are a few theories floating around:
1) He is safe and being kept hidden (for reasons unknown) by a political faction. This, however would be at odds with the various political groups and JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) asking “Where’s Najeeb?”, and would cause a storm in JNU
2) He is somewhere on campus somewhere, hiding alone or with aid. This is most unlikely. With the issue permeating the entire campus, a person who wants to be out of sight will likely leave. The police, too, do not seem to regard this as a viable lead as they have not scanned the university.
3) He has been abducted by persons unknown and taken somewhere for personal or communal reasons. Here, the potential ramifications are unnerving.
4) Succumbing to the stress of the entire affair, he ended his life. A scary thought indeed.
5) He left campus and went to an apolitical, unrelated contact in fear and emotional upheaval. He did not know too many people at JNU, having recently joined the university.
These theories vary in terms of plausibility and even the ones that seem likely throw up some curious questions.
Najeeb’s mother and sister have been in JNU for days. Would he, if safe and well, not have decided to make contact, especially given that he had called his mother soon after the alleged thrashing? There is a missing person’s report and a Rs 1 lakh reward for information on his whereabouts. It has been in the media and is steadily getting political. Perhaps, if safe, Najeeb would have gotten in touch with someone, considering the increasing scale of the matter and his mother’s condition. Unless of course, he has been so consumed by fear and stress that he wishes to delay the inevitable attention and is delaying things.
Other possibilities that do not assume Najeeb’s well-being hinge on his prolonged absence from campus. It does not make sense at this time, however, why a new student with no political affiliations, studying at the Department of Biotechnology, would be a target of any foul play. It is hard to imagine that slapping somebody, while brutish and unacceptable, would illicit the kind of backlash that would see a person abducted. In any case, it is all just speculative at the present and the best lead may well be eyewitness accounts of Najeeb taking an autorickshaw shortly before he went missing.
On the other hand, what is quite clear is that the matter is being prematurely politicised.
The facts just aren’t there yet. Accounts of incidents vary from student to student and faction to faction. In this confused and contradictory atmosphere, there is much presumption and a hasty jumping to agenda-informed conclusions. Three days after Najeeb was allegedly thrashed, the JNU Student’s Union (the president of which is from the CPI-ML-affiliated AISA) printed a pamphlet demanding strict action against ‘communal hate-mongering’ and claimed that there were ‘repeated attacks’ even afterwards, without offering any proof. The very next day, another JNUSU pamphlet claimed that Najeeb had been ‘brutally mob-lynched’ by ABVP and security and students alike bore witness to the ‘heinous lynching’.
Terms like that carry serious connotations and have been incorrectly applied by all accounts. It was highly irresponsible of JNUSU to print such things and it smacks of a political agenda. Such loaded, deliberate usage of language heightens tensions, spreads misinformation and gives wind to rumours. The student body should know better than to risk further polarisation. Just as the ABVP — sections of which are claiming without evidence that the Najeeb is ‘with AISA’ — should. The students’ union cannot give ammunition to the forces that are keen on destabilising the hitherto academic, secular and democratic fabric of JNU.
In all this, the real point is getting obscured; a student is missing after a controversial incident and needs to be located. That is what energies need to be focused on. Political posturing can at least wait till Najeeb is traced and facts are found. Students from any political hue need to come together to press the Vasant Kunj North thana’s SHO and investigating officer and station house officer for a report on progress in the case. They could pose questions and provide clues to the police instead of blaming and shaming each other without the full picture.
Instead, this was and continues to be a tense and extremely urgent issue, the alleviation of which sorely requires new information. Najeeb has been missing now for 12 days. Instilling political dimensions is of no practical use when the need of the hour is to singlemindedly track him down. Anything else is just providing fodder to those actors, inside and outside JNU, who would use the student bodies’ hasty words to malign the university once again. Faced with a crisis, the campus cannot afford to display its own infighting and further polarise the scenario.
As Najeeb’s sister said, “We want Najeeb back, but we want him back the right way.”
It is more about the politics of it than actually looking for Najeeb Ahmed, an MSc first year student of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who went missing from the campus on 15 October following a fight the previous night.
Eight days have passed since Najeeb went missing mysteriously but various political outfits on the campus who are busy forwarding their own agendas seem hardly bothered.
Who cares for a common student?
Instead of showing an urgency to locate Najeeb, that’s what we naturally hoped for, JNUSU (AISA-SFI led) directed their energies more in attacking the ABVP. They repeatedly tried to draw a comparison with the lynching of Akhlaq in Dadri citing that the Najeeb incident has a similarity in the pattern it was carried out.
On the night of 14 October, the attack that took place on Najeeb by some ABVP activists looks a well-planned one. Although the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’Union (JNUSU) president Mohit Pandey personally saved him, the analogy with the Dadri lynching incident if true would put the JNUSU in a position no different to the Akhilesh Yadav government in Uttar Pradesh.
Why Najeeb felt threatened after this attack? One should ask this fundamental question.
It was not for the first time that he was residing at a residential university as he went to the Aligarh Muslim University before. So he must be aware that students in these campuses at times indulge in violent altercations. It is only obvious that different students side with different parties in such situations.
But what differentiated his experience at JNU from any of his previous experiences was the role of AISA-SFI-led JNUSU and other elected student representatives.
On the night of 14 October, as ABVP activists were beating him up, the reason for this violence is still sub-judice, by his own account the JNUSU president arrived there. According to Pandey, he saw Najeeb being attacked by ABVP activists. However, he was not the lone AISA-SFI activist present at that time. How come students kept assaulting a fellow student in the presence of the elected representatives? What were they doing? Najeeb should have been horrified witnessing that the elected leaders are not saving him or are incapable of saving him. If it was not enough for him, when produced before the warden he saw everybody siding with his assaulters.
In a letter signed by the president and one AISA councillor from the School of Languages alleged him of violence while the assault on him was not mentioned. His own roommate, also an elected convenor from AISA, signed a letter which demanded strict action against him. Just imagine a situation when the main opposition political outfit is assaulting an individual and those in power also side with the assaulters.
In such a hostile situation, would not he feel threatened? Everybody was against him. The elected leaders failed to save him from the violence and later took a partial stand. The JNUSU president approved a very biased decision. JNUSU and other outfits who are calling it an attempt of ‘mob-lynching’ are very right. But what is not coming out is who formed this ‘mob’?
Had it been just 10-15 ABVP activists without any major leader involved, Najeeb would not have felt so threatened. If he had this confidence that some people will hear his side of the story, it would have given him some courage. What he witnessed was that the newly elected JNUSU president did not listen to him and the student body took a biased stand against him.
For Najeeb who had joined the campus only a month before the incident, it is intriguing to believe that he could have been a cause for such a high-scale violence. The JNUSU should have had taken an impartial stand and most importantly the responsibility for his welfare.
(The author is a research scholar of Modern History at JNU, New Delhi.)
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Six days after Najeeb Ahmed went missing, protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus took an unprecedented turn with agitating students locking down the Vice Chancellor (VC) Jagadesh Kumar and other senior officials in the administrative building for at least 22 hours on Thursday. The campus was divided over JNU Student’s Union (JNUSU)’s decision to call off the blockade, though the Union held that it was just a strategic change of tactics.“We haven’t called off our protest. We have only changed the methodology,” JNUSU spokespersons said. The decision was taken keeping in mind the Academic Council meeting which was scheduled for 2:30 pm, Thursday.Najeeb Ahmed, a first year MSc student who lived in Room No. 106 of Mahi Mandvi hostel on JNU campus, went missing on October 15 allegedly following an altercation with ABVP activists the previous night. The lockdown began on Wednesday when the students lay down in front of the administrative block in which they held the VC and several other senior administrative officials captive, lying down on the ground and asking them to walk over them if they wanted to leave.Shortly before the VC was allowed to leave on Thursday, he had called a press meet inside the block where he was held and appealed to agitating students to call off the blockade stating that otherwise, the “law will take its own course”.The VC claimed that the authorities were taking every possible ef fort to trace the missing student and blamed students for their illegal detention. “We slept on the floor and were not provided food. Several of our colleagues are sick and they spent whole night without any facilities,” VC Kumar said.Rejecting Kumar’s allegations, the JNUSU said that the incident occurred due to the administration’s insensitive handling of the issue. “The blockade is due to the insensitive way of handling the matter of Najeeb Ahmed-the violence against him by ABVP which led to him missing from the campus for over five days now and the JNU administration trying to shield the culprits while refusing to lodge an FIR,” JNUSU President Mohit Pandey said.As soon as the blockade was called off by JNUSU President Mohit Pandey on Thursday at around 2.15pm, a section of students, including activists of BAPSA, AISF, and DSU started protesting, asking Pandey to explain his decision.“We have been sitting here for the last 24 hours pressurising the authorities to step up their efforts in tracing our missing friend. How can JNUSU take this decision abruptly without apprising us about the status of their meeting with the VC?” a student who wished to stay anonymous, asked.“We’ll continue our protest. We don’t care if JNUSU is with us or not. We’ll carry out a march tonight in the campus in support of Najeeb,” said another student.The atmosphere on campus remained tense on Thursday evening. “JNUSU thinks they are the only legitimate body on campus. They have forgotten that we students elected them. They can’t betray us like this. We won’t stop this movement here. We’ll constitute another body without hierarchy to channelise our protest,” a BAPSA activist said.Ahmad’s family, who also blamed the varsity for not taking action to trace their son, remains grief stricken. “Yesterday we got a call from a mortuary to identify a body. Fortunately, it wasn’t our Najeeb,” says Sadaf, Najeeb’s sister. “The administration is not doing anything to trace my son. Had these students not protested, even the media wouldn’t have come,” Najeeb’s mother Fatima Nafees said. Meanwhile, the Delhi police constituted a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to trace the missing student following a direction from Home Minister Rajnath Singh, who announced a reward of Rs 50,000 for information on Najeeb.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>At least 12 students were summoned on Wednesday by JNU administration to appear before the proctorial committee in connection with a case involving a missing student amid protests that the Vice Chancellor acted in an “insensitive” manner on the issue. A student of School of Biotechnology, Najeeb Ahmed, allegedly went missing on Saturday following a brawl on the campus the night before.An FIR for kidnapping and wrongfully confining a person was lodged at Vasant Kunj North police station on Tuesday after the police received a complaint from the student’s guardians.”The JNU administration had summoned 12 students to depose before the proctorial committee whose names have been associated with the incidence of violence at Mahi-Mandvi hostel on October 14.The committee has also asked anyone who wants to depose to come forward and help in the investigation. Condemning the students for blocking the administrative block, JNU teachers also urged the administration to put more pressure on the police to find Ahmed and appealed for him to return without fear of victimisation,” a statement said.M Jagadesh Kumar, vice chancellor, JNU and other top officials briefed the media for the first time since the disappearance on October 15 noon and said that all necessary measures have been taken to trace the boy and is also in touch with the family.”But we are really concerned about his safety and is constantly in touch with the police providing them whatever information required. We also appeal to Najeeb if his is reading this to return to the university. We assure him of all help,” said Kumar.Accepting the fact that so far no leads have been made on the episode of Ahmed’s disappearance from the campus, Kumar added, “nobody knows what has happened to him so far”.”The family had filed a missing complaint and when we approached the police we were already told that an FIR has been lodged by the family,” said Chintamani Mahapatra, Rector of JNU.The campus remained tense with large number of students gathering at the administrative block in the afternoon to protest. After sloganeering and demonstration the students blocked the gates of the building.After intervention from the security the locks were opened, but in the evening as most of the staff left, the students again continued with the blockade.”The blockade is due to the insensitive way of handling the matter of Najeeb Ahmed — the violence against him by ABVP which led to him missing from the campus for over five days now and the JNU administration trying to shield the culprits while refusing to lodge an FIR,” said Mohit Pandey, president, JNUSU.The situation remained tense with the left-backed JNUSU and ABVP levelling allegations and counter-allegations. ABVP alleged that there is inconsistency in the statements of the JNUSU president Mohit Pandey and the roommate of Ahmad.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student and AISA activist has gone missing under mysterious circumstances, police said on Sunday.Najeeb Ahmad, pursuing MSc in Biotechnology and resident of room 106 of Mahi/Mandavi hostel, has been missing since yesterday allegedly after an altercation with a few students on Saturday night, they added.A case under section 365 (kidnapping with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) of IPC has been registered at the Vasant Kunj North police station on the basis of a complaint by his parents, police said.An AISA activist said Najeeb, who joined the hostel a fortnight ago, had an altercation with some ABVP activists on Saturday night when they were holding a door-to-door campaign at the hostel for the mess committee election.Najeeb allegedly slapped a student following which residents of the hostel asked him to vacate his room.However, the activist alleged, “It all started with a scuffle between two groups of students, but then an entire group of ABVP activists came to avenge it and beat him up,” the activist said.All those who tried to save him, including the warden, JNUSU President and hostel residents were also beaten up.There was a protest organised by JNUSU at the university demanding the JNU administration to immediately take up the matter with the police from the university’s side, said a student.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Escalating its protest against the alleged ‘notice raj’, JNUSU, on Saturday, burned an effigy of the Varsity administration at the famous Sabarmati dhaba inside the campus.”Any attempt to scuttle student’s right to protest or to shrink democratic spaces by the administration will not be tolerated,” JNUSU president Mohit Pandey said.The JNUSU has written a letter to the chief Proctor and appealed him to take ‘serious’ cognisance into the matter and stop ‘targeting’ students.”Any measure of surveillance and targeting of students will be resisted in every possible way,” the letter reads, adding that the administration should immediately stop sending notices to students for holding protests.Students have also demanded the administration to take immediate action against a section of teachers who were allegedly involved in circulation of a “dossier” that spread discrimination against students from North-East and female activists at the campus.”The administration should stop protecting hate campaigners who distribute anti-Dalit, anti-women, and anti-minority dossiers at the university premises,” Pandey said, adding strict actions should be taken against them.A dossier called JNU ‘den of organised sex racket’ was submitted to the University Administration allegedly by a section of professors last year.Yesterday, a show cause notice was issued against two students, including Pandey, for putting up posters on the walls of Administrative building regarding hostel unavailability.Three show cause notices have been issued by the Varsity in past 15 days; the other two include burning effigies of Gujarat government and recently that of PM Narendra Modi on Dussehra by National Students Union of India activists following which the agitated students have announced a University strike on October 17.
After a 28-year-old JNU student filed a rape case against an All India Student Association (AISA) activist, accusing him of raping her in a hostel room on the university campus, national president of AISA, Sucheta De said that the association takes serious note of the fact that Anmol Ratan, a leading activist of AISA, is facing a criminal complaint of sexual assault.
“He is henceforth expelled from the primary membership of AISA.”
De said this on a Facebook post. Asserting that AISA will be “unflinching” when it came to principles of gender justice even if it involved a leading member of the organisation, She said that the association and its members stood by the complainant and “will extend all possible support in her fight for justice.”
The AISA president shared the statement on her Facebook page.
De added that the police must not delay in taking all necessary action towards justice. “The University must also take disciplinary measures against the accused, and must extend all needed support to the survivor,” she said in the Facebook post. Vice-president of JNUSU Shehla Rashid and many others from JNU have shared De’s Facebook post.
Meanwhile, politics over the alleged rape started brewing inside the JNU campus when the joint secretary of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) Saurabh Sharma dubbed Anmol Ratan as “Rapist Left Brigade”.
Sharma called for various protests through the day and asked everyone to join a protest march — ‘Bekhauf Azaadi.’ Shishir Tripathi of Firstpost reported that Sharma has called for a class campaign in all schools of JNU from 10 am till 1 pm on Monday.
Sharma also said that JNUSU will protest at the administrative block of the university at 3 pm and will ask JNU vice-chancellor to rusticate the “rapist” and justice for the survivor.
JNUSU members will reportedly hold their evening ‘mess campaign’ from 7.30 pm to 9.00 pm in all hostels for “the justice to the survivor and to uphold our legacy of gender justice and to save JNU’s name, pride and culture.”
“Please join us at Sabarmati Dhaba at 10 pm for effigy burning of the Rapist Left Brigade,” Sharma told Firstpost.
Sharma also took to Facebook. Dubbing AISA as “hypocrite”, he said:
“Not mere an activist, but STATE SECRETARY of AISA : Mr. Anmol Ratan ( meaning a Precious jewel) is booked under 376/506 IPC for RAPE of a poor 1st year JNU Phd girl. Initial reports are coming that he even threatened The poor girl of CONSEQUENCES if she reports to Police.”
Anmol Ratan’s Facebook page has been suspended.
The woman in question is a first-year PhD student. She alleged that Ratan raped her on Saturday. According to the complaint filed by her at Vasant Kunj (North) police station, she had posted on her Facebook profile that she wanted to watch Sairat movie and asked if anyone had a CD of it. It said Ratan apparently messaged her saying that he had a copy. Thereafter, he picked her up on Saturday on the pretext of giving her a CD of the film and took her to Brahamputra Hostel, where he stays.
She said in the complaint that he offered her a spiked drink and allegedly raped her. He also threatened her and asked her to not report the matter. However, the woman approached the police on Sunday and a case of rape was registered and further investigation is underway.
With inputs from agencies
A month after Delhi High Court stayed the punishment to JNU students in connection with the controversial February 9 event, the university on Thursday formed a four-member committee to hear appeals of those who had been found guilty of indiscipline by the varsity probe panel.”The Vice Chancellor has formed a committee to assist him in his capacity as the appellate authority to hear the appeals from students who had been found guilty by the High Level Enquiry Committee (HLEC) of violating various university rules during the February 9 incident on campus,” an official statement said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>JNU was at the centre of a controversy in February this year because of an event on campus against hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru at which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.Three students including the students union chief Kanhaiya Kumar were arrested in a sedition case over the event and are now out on bail. 21 JNU students were slapped with varied punishments ranging from rustication, hostel debarment to financial penalty on basis of the probe by the HLEC which found them guilty of violation of discipline norms.The students had gone on an indefinite hunger strike against the decision which lasted for 16 days. As the varsity refused to relent and withdraw the punitive action proposed against the students despite their failing health, some students moved the Delhi High Court challenging the action.Following this, the High Court issued directions to JNUSU to immediately withdraw the hunger strike and to not launch any fresh agitation. It had stayed action against the students till their appeals have been decided by the appellate authority.”The proceedings have begun from today and the concerned students have been asked to depose before the appellate authority,” the statement added.
New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar on Monday wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, targeting him on a range of issues.
Saying that “a situation of emergency has been created in every university”, Kumar in his Facebook page wrote the open letter to Modi asking him: “Is this the situation that you were promising when you were chanting the slogan of ‘achche din’ across the length and breadth of the nation?”
“You (Modi) have handed the reins of our temples of learning into the hands of those who are not just averse to knowledge, but also determined and proven opponents of history, art, culture and logic,” the JNUSU president wrote.
Kumar accused Modi for returning favours to those who financially paved his ascent to power.
Kumar said that no new jobs have been created, farmers are killing themselves, poor are increasingly becoming poorer, students can’t afford to study, those who do make it to the various universities face caste-based humiliation and discrimination.
“Brilliant students are forced to hang themselves from fans. Or else they are raped and/or murdered. And if by some miracle they manage to save themselves from such vile acts then their fellowships are stopped in order to deter them pursuing higher studies,” he mentioned in his letter.
He added that even the basic rights of teachers and workers have been targeted forcing them to come out on the streets and protest against the system and getting arrested.
“It seems that a situation of emergency has been created in every university,” he wrote.
The open letter targets the Prime Minister with words that “the country won’t change by changing the meat or the video. The nation will be transformed when the condition of its people are improved.”
Kumar said that under Modi’s regime, things have only gone from bad to worse.
Kumar asked: “Had you (Modi) delivered development in the last two years, you would not have to spend crores of rupees to advertise it.”
He said that the apparent reality is that Modi has done nothing to improve the lives of the people.
“I question you here as a student. You spend Rs 200 crore on advertisements, but you don’t have Rs 99 crore for non-NET scholarships for the research scholars,” Kumar said.
“You have thousands of crore of rupees to buy battle tanks, but you don’t have money to pay minimum wages to workers. You have thousands of crores of rupees for air trips but you can’t give farmers fair minimum support prices for their crop.”
He claimed Modi’s policies seem like “a series of misfortune for the common masses”.
Kumar said the “next generation” will ask Modi why he remained silent on the issue of ministers spreading hatred against a particular community, ministers framing false cases against students on the basis of fake tweets.
“Why were you silent when meat samples were switched and communal venom was being spread? The main question is – whether you have been elected to bring development or to strengthen those who spread hatred and violence,” the letter questioned.
He also accused Modi of forgetting the issue of price rise and inflation in the Indian economy, citing one of the taglines of his election campaign – “Bahut hui mahangai ki maar, Abki baar Modi Sarkar”.
“You (Modi) mocked Manmohan Singh for his silence. But neither do you speak for us. And when you do speak, it is not for the impoverished masses of this country, but for America, where lawmakers give you a standing ovation,” Kumar wrote in the letter.
Saurabh Sharma, the Joint Secretary of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) on Thursday alleged that a person named Mujeeb Gattu, who had raised ‘anti-national’ slogans on February 9, is still active on the campus.The JNU office bearer’s remark came after a video purportedly showed Mujeeb Gatto present in the varsity.”Mujeeb Gattu was present in the gathering outside the communication centre here. He is the same person who had raised anti-national slogans on the campus,” Saurabh told ANI.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”He had covered his face with a cloth while raising the slogans. His video has been shot and is doing the rounds in the media,” he added.Gatto recently met JNU students when they sat on a hunger strike, he added.The JNUSU Joint Secretary said the sad part of the episode is that the university administration, even after being aware of the happenings, has been silently supporting them.”There should be a probe in the matter. The Delhi Police have not taken any action in this regard. Even a high level committee found Mujeeb Gatto guilty in the anti-national sloganeering and his name is also mentioned in the report,” he added.Mujeeb Gatto guilty in the anti-national sloganeering and his name is also mentioned in the report,” he added.Meanwhile, Delhi High Court has put on hold the disciplinary action taken by the JNU administration against students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, accused of sedition in connection with a February 9 event, till their appeals against the decision are decided by the university’s appellate authority.The university had rusticated Umar Khalid, Anirban and Mujeeb Gattu and fined JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar with Rs 10,000 for the event held on campus in Afzal Guru’s remembrance.
New Delhi: Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, who were rusticated from JNU, have moved Delhi High Court seeking the same relief that was extended to JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and others against whom disciplinary action was taken by the varsity for a controversial event there on 9 February this year.
Justice Manmohan on 13 May had put on hold the decision of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) till the appeals of Kanhaiya and the other students, against the disciplinary action, were decided by the appellate authority of the varsity.
The court had issued the direction after Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) undertook to immediately withdraw its hunger strike and not to indulge in any further agitation.
The court in its order had also said if the appeals of the students were rejected, then the order of appellate authority would not be given effect to till a period of two weeks.
Anirban and Umar, who along with Kanhaiya have been accused of sedition for what happened during the 9 February event, had moved the court on 9 May against their rustication from the varsity, a decision which was taken on the basis of recommendations of a high level enquiry committee (HLEC).
While Umar was rusticated for one semester and slapped with a fine of Rs 20,000, Anirban was rusticated till 15 July and after 23 July he was barred from the university campus for five years. Anirban was only given a week between 16-22 July to complete his thesis.
However, on May 10 when their matter was taken up, JNU had agreed in court to extend the date of deposit of fine, by Umar, to 30 May.
After the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), another city-based institute has received a packet containing ‘explosive’ substance, a detonator and a threat letter carrying a warning against inviting JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, police said on Monday.The Department of Communication and Journalism located in Ranade Institute building in Deccan area here, got the packet, with content similar to what was found in the FTII parcel on Saturday.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Department of Communication and Journalism, which is run by the Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU), had received the parcel on Saturday, which was opened today.”A peon at the Department of Communication and Journalism in Ranade Institute had received the parcel on Saturday. But when it was opened today, it was found to be containing explosive substance, a detonator and a threat letter. The only difference in this packet (from the FTII parcel) was the name of the recipient,” said DCP (Zone I) Sudhir Hiremath of Pune Police.The letter was addressed to the head of the department Dr Madhavi Reddy, he said.When contacted, Vice Chancellor of SPPU, Vasudev Gade told PTI, “Madhavi Reddy came to my office and showed the parcel to me. The letter in the packet read, ‘You are supporting anti-national Kanhaiya Kumar and you will have to pay the price. A gift has been sent along with this letter.'” The police officer said that they were trying to establish whether the packets were sent before the Kanhaiya Kumar’s event held in the city on April 24 or after that.”Based on our investigation conducted so far, it seems that both the parcels were dispatched within the city and received at Deccan Post office on May 7,” he said.”We are trying to ascertain the stamps on both the parcels to understand the origin from where the parcels were dispatched. The stamps are not clear, hence it is difficult to ascertain the post office, from where it was sent,” he said adding that the parcel was sent through ordinary mail.Some students of the department were part of the organising committee, which had invited Kanhaiya Kumar in Pune on April 24. The students had formed a committee to invite him, after the BJP’s youth wing, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), had allegedly threatened to beat up the students if they invited the JNUSU leader. The event was finally held at Balgandhava Rangmandir here.The administration of the journalism department has approached Deccan Police Station to register a case.
Kolkata: Academics from West Bengal have expressed solidarity with the agitating students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), and urged the vice-chancellor to reject the recommendation of the high-level committee and hold a dialogue with the students.
“We stand in solidarity with the students of JNU. We urge the vice chancellor of the university to reject the recommendation of the high level committee, and to open a dialogue with his students.
“This will not diminish the university, but will indeed add to its lustre,” said a statement issued by Shubhendu Dasgupta, a retired professor of Calcutta University, on behalf of concerned teachers and academics, to the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) and to the students’ union.
The academics — both retired and active — belong to different colleges, universities, and research centres of Bengal.
JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and 19 other students are on a hunger strike since 28 April to protest against the punishment handed out to them by a high-level committee that probed the 9 February event on the campus.
Expressing “shock” at the rustication, expulsion and fine imposed on several students, the signatories of the statement said they “find this painful and absolutely contrary to our understanding of what a university should be.”
“We find it incredible that today an old colonial law is invoked to discipline our students. This was the very law that our colonial masters had used to incarcerate our freedom fighters, and it is ludicrous and outright shameful that our present rulers find it so handy,” the statement said.
The academics also asserted that questioning the policies of the state amounts to sedition.
“It is not yet fully established that the accused students had indeed raised such slogans as they are alleged to have done. Notwithstanding that, we do not believe that questioning the policies of the state, even if that pertains to cessation to a part of its territory, amounts to sedition, howsoever sedition is defined.
“Are we not free to question, or condemn our state, if we happen to believe that it has on some account or other acted illegally or immorally? If such freedom is denied, then we conclude, this state has lost its privilege to call itself a republic,” they asked.
JNU vice chancellor M Jagdeesh Kumar on Wednesday appealed to the agitating students to end their hunger strike and asked them to approach the administration to discuss their demands.
Anti-national slogans were allegedly raised at an event held on the JNU campus on 9 February to commemorate executed parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, following which Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya were arrested on sedition charges.
The committee report, which was released on 25 April, fined Kanhaiya Kumar Rs 10,000 and rusticated Khalid and Bhattacharya for one semester each.
Another research scholar, Mujeeb Gatto, was rusticated for two semesters. Khalid was also asked to pay Rs 20,000 as fine by 13 May.
Kanhaiya Kumar is flying high, quite literally.
Organisers for the events at which “he is invited to speak” pay for his air travel. “Nothing wrong in travelling by air,” he said when accused of indulging in extravagance. There’s nothing wrong with it at all, but what about touching the feet of someone during whose rule, comrade Chandrashekar, ex-president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) was shot dead?
For those not in the know, Chandrashekhar, still recalled by students fondly as Chandu, was a highly admired student leader. An active member of the All India Students Federation (AISF), who later became the driving force behind the All India Students’ Association (AISA), he was president of JNUSU for two successive terms — 1993 and 1994.
He was in Bihar in March 1997, raising his voice against criminalisation of politics under Lalu Prasad Yadav, when he was shot dead by sharpshooters allegedly close to RJD strongman Syed Shahabuddin. And to date, no Left discourse on campus is complete without glowing tributes to Chandu.
Not even as long back as a year ago, Kanhaiya and his comrades were busy singing paeans to him.
How things have changed! Or rather how Kanhaiya has changed!
Besides being close to Shahabuddin, Lalu also symbolises corruption in Bihar. In his speech in Patna during the recent visit, Kanhaiya spoke eloquently on the topic of azadi among other things. Conspicuously absent though was any word on azadi from corruption. Perhaps it would have displeased the man whose feet Kanhaiya touched. Of course, he didn’t talk about Shahabuddin. Watch this documentary Ek Minute Ka Maun. It will show you how thousands of JNU students gathered at Lalu’s residence in Delhi demanding justice, but all they got were bullets and lathis.
Kanhaiya has shifted to a new trajectory after the 9 February incident at JNU. Students slapped with suspension and fine are on hunger strike. One of them named Saurabh Sharma was on Monday admitted to Safdarjung Hospital due to dehydration. Teachers are also on hunger strike in support of students. In the midst of this, Kanhaiya’s opportunistic political ambitions are creating a flutter among his comrades.
Sucheta De of AISA wrote on her Facebook page:
In response to De’s post, Kamla Chenoy wrote:
“Sucheta, I regret that you have brought the debate to this level. When Chandu (Chandrasekhar Prasad) was killed, we mourned him for weeks and still celebrate his dedication to Marxist causes and his great sacrifice. We also ensured that the CBI took up his case as ordered by Com. Indrajit Gupta, then Home Minister. Wasn’t Com. Vinod Mishra an exceptional comrade widely respected across the Left and progressive spectrum? Though CPI (ML) was a relatively small party, Com Vinod Mishra was a giant. These are early days for Kanhaiya. But his rise is an indication of the rise of youth, who are fed up with the bourgeois political parties and their grim future, with few jobs available. Shehla has also made an impact. She is also a rising star, and we all wish her well, as we do Ashutosh, Naga, Umar, Anirban and others. As for your dire predictions, do remember that only Kanhaiya has a sedition case against him. I humbly request that we do not magnify such issues. We yet have a lot to do”.
Shehla Rashid, vice-president, JNUSU, who led the movement when Kanhaiya was in jail, replied with a lengthy response of her own:
While these student leaders display maturity on not attacking Kanhaiya for his controversial moves, the fact remains that there is growing discontent among students.
New Delhi: The indefinite hunger strike at JNU against punishment to students by the university in connection with the controversial 9 February event, entered the fifth day on Monday and witnessed an altercation between ABVP and Left-affiliated groups on the campus.
ABVP member and president of Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) Satender Awana visited the campus on Monday and an heated argument broke out between him and protesting members from the other group.
While the Left groups alleged Awana abused and passed indecent remarks, he claimed that he had gone to express solidarity with the protesting group of ABVP and Left groups abused them.
Awana had kicked up a controversy in February for his remarks at a Jantar Mantar protest where he had said “if no action was taken against those who had raised anti-India slogans I will enter the campus and shoot the traitors.”
Fasting Saurabh Kumar Sharma of ABVP, who was complainant of the Afzal Guru event, claimed that his glucose level dipped today following which he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital by the university health centre. He, was however, back on campus by evening and continued with his fast.
Two groups of students are sitting on indefinite hunger strike since Thursday in protest against the punishment announced by the university against various students in connection with the controversial event on campus during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.
JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, were arrested in a sedition case in connection with the event. They are out on bail now.
While Kanhaiya has been slapped with a penalty of Rs 10,000 on grounds of “indiscipline and misconduct”, Umar, Anirban and Kashmiri student Mujeeb Gatoo have been rusticated for varying durations.
Financial penalty has been imposed on 14 students. Hostel facilities of two students have been withdrawn and the university has declared the campus out of bounds for two former students.
Saurabh Sharma has also been slapped with a fine of Rs 10,000 for blocking traffic.
While Kanhaiya is travelling to Patna and Kerala and continuing with his fast, members of JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) will be joining the strike for one day tomorrow in solidarity with the agitating students.
Patna: JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar was on Sunday shown black flags at a function by two unidentified persons who were roughed up by his supporters before being detained by the police for questioning.
The two persons belonging to a little-known outfit -‘Youth Swaraj’ – showed black flags to the JNUSU president, besides raising slogan of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ while he was speaking at a function ‘Azadi’ in the S K Memorial hall organised by AISF and AIYF.
Kanhaiya’s supporters thrashed the two persons in the hall. Later the police took the duo into custody.
“Police have detained two persons in this regard,” Patna Senior Superintendent of Police Manu Maharaj said.
The two detainees have been identified as Nitish Kumar, a resident of Sitamarhi district, and Manikant Mani, a resident of Samastipur district, the police said, adding that the two youths are said to be the members of RSS.
The JNUSU president, who was addressing the gathering when the incident occurred, said he was not scared of such elements who oppose him or try to disturb his functions. “I am not scared of anything whether you hurl a shoe or a stone…. They want to disturb my programmes as they are uncomfortable with my questions,” Kumar said.
Attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Kumar alleged that he became the PM “with the support of capitalists” and cannot solve the problem of unemployment.
There was ruckus during Jawaharlal Nehru University Student’s Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar’s event in Patna on Sunday afternoon after a man was thrashed by his supporters for showing a black flag.The police have detained two people for showing black flag to Kanhaiya during his speech at Patna’s SKM Hall.Kanhaiya, who was on Sunday given a warm welcome in the state capital, met Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav at their residences later in the day.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>This is his first visit to Bihar after he was released from Delhi’s Tihar Jail on bail.Kanhaiya was arrested on sedition charges in connection with an event held at the JNU campus in March where anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.
JNU student Anirban Bhattacharya, who has been rusticated from the university in connection with the Afzal Guru event, was served a show-cause notice by the varsity on Thursday for his alleged involvement in a screening of “Muzaffarnagar abhi baqi hai” which was held last August.”A complaint against you was received in Chief Proctor’s office in August, 2015. It has been alleged that you were involved in participation in screening of a documentary-film ‘Muzaffarnagar abhi baqi hai’ without permission of the administration near Godvari dhaba,” the notice read.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”You are directed to appear before the Proctor on May 4 and explain your position in this regard. You may also bring your evidence which you may wish to submit in your defence,” it added.Anirban along with JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid was arrested in a sedition case in connection with a controversial event on campus against hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which anti-national slogans have been allegedly raised. The trio are out on bail now.Based on recommendations of a university probe panel, Kanhaiya has been penalised with Rs 10,000 and Umar has been rusticated for one semester and slapped with fine of Rs 20,000.Anirban has rusticated from the university till July 15 and has been debarred from taking up any course or participating in any academic activity for five years beginning July 23. The eight-day window has been given to him for submission of his thesis, failing which he will have to start his PhD afresh at JNU, that too after five years.Reacting to the show-cause notice served to him nine months after the event, “there was an unfamiliar knock on the door. I was anticipating that they may come any time demanding that I vacate my hostel room as per the farcical order of rustication. But as I opened the door, I was honoured with, guess what, yet another notice from the proctor’s office”.Calls and text messages to the Proctor seeking his reaction on why the notice has been sent after so long and at a time when he has already been rusticated, went unanswered.While both Anirban and Umar were found guilty by the university of arousing communal violence and disrupting harmony on campus, the different punishments awarded to them have been justified as “based on previous record of conduct” by the university. Following protests by ABVP, JNU had in last August stopped the screening of documentary on the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots saying no permission was sought for the event.
New Delhi: JNU students who have been punished by the university in connection with the controversial 9 February event on Wednesday began an indefinite hunger strike to demand revocation of punitive action.
JNU Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya along with other students started the hunger strike at night and said they reject the findings and recommendations of the high-level inquiry committee that probed the incident.
Kanhaiya, Umar and Anirban Bhattachayra were arrested on the charge of sedition in February in connection with an event on campus against hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised. They are out on bail now.
“We have been maintaining right from the beginning that we have no faith in the probe committee. We are all sitting on hunger strike against the arbitrary punishments given to us.
The inquiry was a sham and students have rejected it in our general body meeting. We will not abide by the punishment given to us,” JNUSU General Secretary Rama Naga said.
The students took out a march late night from Ganga Dhaba to administration block against the action. While Kanhaiya has been slapped with a penalty of Rs 10,000 on grounds of “indiscipline and misconduct”, Umar, Anirban and Kashmiri student Mujeeb Gatoo have been rusticated for varied durations.
Fourteen students have been imposed financial penalty, hostel facilities of two students have been withdrawn and university has declared the campus out of bounds for two former students.
ABVP member Saurabh Sharma, who was complainant in the case lodged over the event, has also been slapped with a penalty of Rs 10,000 for blocking traffic.
Five members of ABVP have been sitting on hunger strike since yesterday, alleging that the university is “criminalising” patriotism. The university officials, however, maintained that the decision has been taken after thorough investigation by a five-member probe panel and are in accordance with varsity norms.
New Delhi: JNU has failed to distinguish between nationalists and anti-nationals while deciding the punishment to students in connection with the controversial 9 February event and has “criminalised” patriotism, members of ABVP alleged on Wednesday.
The university officials, however, maintained that decision has been made after thorough investigation by a five-member probe panel and the punishments have been announced in accordance with the varsity norms.
Five members of ABVP which is BJP’s student wing, are on hunger strike since Tuesday demanding withdrawal of punishment orders for Saurabh Sharma, who is the lone ABVP member in JNU students union.
Sharma, JNUSU Joint Secretary, was the main complainant of the event on campus against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.
Following his complaint on day of the event, JNU administration had withdrawn the permission for the programme but the organisers had gone ahead with it.
However, a high-level committee of the university probing the issue has found Sharma “guilty” of blocking the traffic and he has been imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000.
“JNU administration has failed to distinguish between the acts of nationalist and those of anti-Indians. It has infact equated them. We believe that the punishment awarded to Saurabh Sharma for stopping the anti-national procession is a sad incident of criminalising patriotism and nation-service,” ABVP said in a statement.
“He was acting as a responsible citizen of India and it was his fundamental duty as per the Constitution to uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. We want his punishment to be revoked as this shall set a precedent whereby the every nationalist student shall fear to oppose the anti-national events in the campus,” it added.
Responding to the allegations a senior university official said, “the sequence of events has been thoroughly probed by the five-member probe committee and the decision has been taken in accordance with university norms.”
Terming the decision of the enquiry committee an act of “cowardice, compromise and collusion”, ABVP has sought an assurance from the administration that “such anti-national and seditious event shall not take in future”.
“The arbitrariness of punishment reveals the buckling of the JNU administration under pressure from students union and teachers association. One of the participants of the event is a daughter of a politician and has not been given any punishment. Some of them are the habitual offenders and awarding feather-like punishment is making heroes out of demons,” ABVP said.
JNU students union president Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattachayra were arrested on the charge of sedition in February in connection with the controversial event and are out on bail.
While Kanhaiya has been slapped with a penalty of Rs 10,000 on grounds of “indiscipline and misconduct”, Umar, Anirban and Kashmiri student Mujeeb Gatoo have been rusticated for varied durations.
New Delhi: Anirban Bhattacharya rusticated for 5 years; Umar Khalid for one semester and fined Rs 20,000; former JNUSU president Ashutosh Kumar removed from hostel for one year and fined; current JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar fined Rs 10,000. They, along with many others have been punished by the Jawaharlal Nehru University administration for their alleged involvement in raising anti-national slogans inside the campus on a 9 February event.
While the students have apparently rejected the punishment imposed on them by a high-level inquiry committee, the decision has led to its questioning as many feel it’s too harsh and disproportionate for the ‘crime committed’. And also, whether it’s in sync with JNU’s tradition of giving rights to its students to critique the system?
Though the opinions are divided; tilt is more on the side of the students.
Former noted professor of economics at JNU Arun Kumar said, “It has never been as harsh as this time. The flavour of JNU is missing. The whole purpose of JNU is to critique knowledge. It seems like the administration has either got orders from ‘the top’ to take stern action or probably they have been trying to be more loyal than the king. May be they want to set an example by punishing the students, that includes the student leadership as well. The message that they want to give is tow our line or face consequences.”
“By browbeating the JNU student leadership, the administration has set a bad precedence. And moreover, the case is in court and allegations against the students have not yet been proved conclusively. Those who actually raised anti-national slogans are out of bounds. There is nothing new about students being vocal, but that doesn’t mean that attempts should be made to curb the culture of debate and discussion. No one at JNU gets into physical violence. Healthy politics is better than goondagardi,” added Prof Kumar.
In the history of JNU, this is the second such incident of its kind after the 1983 one. According to some faculty and staff members, who are also JNU alumni, 33 years ago there had been a massive violence on campus – the then vice chancellor was surrounded, his residence was forcibly occupied and that created a havoc. As a result, large-scale arrests were made and students were sent to Tihar Jail.
Mentioning the turn of events as a “very sad one”, TK Oommen, professor emeritus remarked, “It’s too harsh a punishment for verbal or symbolic violence. No physical violence or assault took place in the real sense. The punishment pronounced by the committee reflects the immature way of handling the entire episode. Moreover, at present the establishment at JNU and the government seem to harbor a different view, unlike in the past.”
Prof CSR Murthy, member, executive council of JNU, would have been happy if the students would have responded to the high-level inquiry committee’s call and had presented their side of the story.
“Personally, I feel extremely sad over the entire episode and the way the students have been reprimanded. The process of natural justice could not be followed as the students didn’t appear and present their side. Today, the middle ground and voice of moderation have been lost. From student related issues on campus, it has converted into a larger political issue. It seems both JNU vice chancellor and administration on one hand and students on the other have lost control. Everything seems to be dictated by external forces,” said Prof Murthy, a JNU alumnus and member of JNU teachers’ association.
However, there are academicians who feel that lawlessness inside the campus should not be tolerated, especially talks of dividing the nation, separatism and hailing terrorists.
“Student politics is different to raising anti-national slogans inside university campus, and then to justify it under the garb of freedom of speech. Rather than punishing students alone, action should be taken against the teaching faculty and those who provoked the students to go this far. The source of indoctrination like the faulty texts and curriculum contents — that leads to divisive mindset need to be reviewed and corrected,” remarked, Prof Saradindu Mukherjie, member, Indian Council for Historical Research.
A former vice chancellor, who didn’t want to be named told Firstpost, “I haven’t seen the content of the inquiry panel’s report, but I’m sure before pronouncing the punishment, they must have gone through the charges. Now, as the students have rejected the punishment imposed on them, what is the way out? Is there any plan B before the JNU administration? Now the issue will be heard in the court of law. Things have messed up.”
Seated on his window seat aboard Jet Airways flight 9W 618 to Pune from Kolkata via Mumbai on Sunday, Tata Consultancy Services employee Manas Deka was an unknown man until of course destiny chose otherwise. Travelling with his team on an official assignment, little did Deka know, that this journey would turn out to be an epic one.
And what a way to get famous!
Those tense moments when he had a rather heated argument with Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and his group aboard the flight catapulted his popularity from Nowheresville to the land of trolls and TRPs.
After a failed attempt on Monday, it was on Tuesday that Firstpost was able to contact Deka to learn about his version of what happened.
“I was in the window seat while this guy (Kanhaiya Kumar) was in the aisle seat. Kanhaiya and 12-13 other boys were there in the group and they had boarded the flight in Mumbai. It so happened that when I was coming out from the seat my hand touched Kanhaiya’s shoulder. I am suffering from a boil in my thigh and it gets extremely painful when the area hits something. I was quite careful not to hurt it. In the process, since it’s a cramped area my hands touched Kanhaiya’s shoulder. He immediately reacted saying that I was going to kill him and in non time turned the whole situation into a drama,” Deka told Firstpost from Pune.
“There were 18 of us who were travelling to Pune as our base was temporarily shifted out of Kolkata because of the ongoing West Bengal Assembly Election. Since the private firms were asked to shut down operations on poll days, this was a temporary arrangement as all our clientele are all from abroad and we cannot afford to close down our operations. We are to function out of Pune till 27 May,” the TCS employee said.
“Since there was a half-hour halt in Mumbai I just thought of chatting with my colleagues on board and that’s why I had come out of my seat,” Deka said while explaining the sequence of events.
But it was all havoc, the moment his hand touched Kanhaiya’s shoulder.
Taken aback by this reaction, the TCS staffer instantly offered his apologies to the JNUSU president and explained him about his medical condition. “But Kanhaiya would have none of it,” Deka said.
“Immediately all his friends surrounded me and threatened me with dire consequences. If you seen the clip there was one guy in a while shirt. He became so aggressive that I felt that he was going to rain blows soon after,” he said.
“Very soon, it snowballed into a heated altercation.”
What was intriguing was the BJP link. Where did the party jump in from in all that pandemonium?
“As soon as the fight escalated, the CISF and police were called into the aircraft. When they asked my name I told them it was Manas Jyoti Deka. Someone from Kanhaiya’s group might have googled it immediately when the name of BJP’s Manas Deka had probably appeared,” the TCS employee said. “That’s how the wrong Manas Deka of the BJP in all likelihood came into the picture. They did not have the time to ascertain the facts in their zeal to pin me down,” he said.
The TCS staffer was furious that an innocent individual was unnecessarily dragged into the whole controversy.
“If Kanhaiya Kumar is such a big leader as he thinks he is, he should have some common sense. Can’t there be many individuals with the same name? He claims to be a student but he is too much into politics,” Deka said.
The TCS employee also took umbrage to the way Kanhaiya used his language. “Tu Kolkata se hai na? Aa raha hoon mein. Dikhatu hoon tujhe! (You are from Kolkata, right? I am coming. I will show you). That’s how he abused me in public,” Deka said.
Belonging to a nondescript village near Sarthebari town in Assam’s Barpeta district, TCS staffer Manas Deka is the son of a retired college principal.
“Because of Kanhaiya and his group, my whole family is tense. My parents, my brother and sister are all crying because they fear harm to me. They are extremely worried,” he said.
The highlight, however is, it is still not over.
“I have already received three-four threatening calls. I am concentrating on my work and have ignored them so far. I have not sought police protection yet. The police has also not contacted me so far,” Deka said.
The TCS staffer was also not in a mood to meekly surrender.
“He has put my family in so much distress. I will soon file a case against him,” Deka said, adding, “I am not alone. All my colleagues and my friends are behind me. The company has been extremely supportive and has assured me of all help. The TCS human resource department is constantly in touch with me.”
When pointed out that his not-so-friendly updates about the JNU on Facebook are doing the rounds, Deka’s answer was prompt.
“It depends on my wish. As a normal human being I might like or dislike anything. It’s just my personal opinion. Now they have dragged in even that and are making politics out of it,” he said.
Deka denied that he had deleted his Facebook profile. “Its access is private,” he said.
Although aware of the trolls that he had been subjected to all the while, the TCS employee simply chose to ignore them as there is hardly anything he could about them.
Next time, when he boards the aircraft for his return journey to Kolkata, TCS employee Manas Deka will probably be in a pensive mood, wondering what lies ahead — cruise control or turbulence.
Kanhaiya Kumar had on Tuesday said that he and his supporters in JNU will burn fake HLEC report which decided to slap him with a fine of Rs 10,000 and rusticated Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya.”The high-level inquiry committee is undemocratic. The people targetted aren’t being given a chance to express their stand. The high-level inquiry committee is casteist, we do not heed its report and it’s actions demanded. Today at Azadi Chowk at 4.00 pm. We will burn the fake HLEC report and will fight back against the anti-social justice admin of JNU,” he said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya had on Monday said the decision to rusticate them from the varsity was “unacceptable” and termed as “farce” the inquiry by a high-level committee even as the students’ union threatened a countrywide campaign on the matter.In his reaction, JNU students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar, who has been slapped with a fine of Rs 10,000 by the varsity administration, said the punitive action handed down on the basis of a “farcical” probe was “simply unacceptable” and that the Union rejects it.Terming the decision against them as “unacceptable”, Anirban and Umar alleged the authority’s action amounted to a “witch-hunt” under the “diktats” of RSS.”The JNU administration declares its allegiance to RSS, once again! After allowing police to enter campus to unleash the worst repression…now the JNU admin has come down with its own list of punishments. A farce is what this inquiry has been from day one, made to witch-hunt and punish students by hook or crook. Do we need to remind you, Mr Jagdish Kumar (JNU VC) that unlike you the students and teachers of this campus are not pliant stooges of the RSS,” Umar posted on Facebook.JNUSU vice president Shehla Rashid Shora said, “We will launch a countrywide campaign to expose this government s anti-student, anti-Dalit character.”Shehla said the action against the students was based on “sheer vendetta and a biased inquiry” and “one-sided” statements from ABVP members.”The VC is taking directions from the Central govt. He should have acted first as an academician and then as an RSS loyalist. Rakesh Bhatnagar, the head of the committee, is the treasurer of anti-reservationist Youth for Equality, and most students who have been punished belong to Dalit, Muslim and backward castes,” she said.JNU on Monday slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on JNUSU president Kumar and rusticated PhD scholars Umar and Anirban for varying duration in connection with the controversial February 9 event for which they were charged with sedition, an action which had triggered widespread outrage and protests.Based on the findings of a committee, Umar has been rusticated for one semester and slapped with a fine of Rs 20,000, Anirban has been rusticated till July 15. With agency inputs.
The Airtel number you are calling is switched off. Please call again later.
This was the continuous response from the phone number that Firstpost tried calling umpteen number of times on Monday. It belongs to Manas Deka, coordinator, BJP National Security Cell. However, it was not surprising at all to find the mobile phone switched off.
Thanks to the feisty boss of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU)—Kanhaiya Kumar—and the high-handedness of his friends, they managed to put an unassuming individual in as much trouble as they could. His fault: his name is Manas Deka and he is a BJP man.
The whole drama started on Sunday when Kanhaiya apparently got into a fight with one of his co-flyers aboard a Jet Airways flight bound from Mumbai to Pune claiming that he was under attack. His co-passenger—Manas Jyoti Deka—nearly a namesake of BJP’s Manas Deka, is a Tata Consultancy Services employee and was sitting next to Kanhaiya in the flight.
Although multiples versions are emerging as to what exactly transpired between the two, there was certainly physical contact, although the degree of its severity now resides in the realm of phantasmagoria. While Kanhaiya claimed that it was an attempt to “strangulate” him, the TCS employee brushed it aside as a “cheap publicity stunt”. All including the high profile Kanhaiya and company and Deka got offloaded after it was decided so by the captain of the aircraft.
The action didn’t end here. Having turned into the poster boy of the Indian media of late, Kanhaiya and company decided to make use of the incident to get another round of limelight. As luck or ill-luck would have it, they discovered that there is one Manas Deka in the BJP. Both the Manas Dekas are also from Assam. Then went out a series of tweets from Kanhaiya. Boom!
“Yet again, this time inside the aircraft, a man tries to strangulate me.”
“After the incident @jetairways staff completely refuses to take any action against the man who assaulted me.”
“Basically @jetairways sees no difference between someone who assaults nd d person who is assaulted. They will deplane you, if you complain.”
And then the bomb:
So charged up Kanhaiya got for his Pune event, he tweeted soon after:
Unwilling to relent and check into facts, Kanhaiya kept his virtual assault on albeit on two individuals together — one in the know and the other completely ignorant about the whole issue until hell fell on him.
“I was not in touch with the news as I was busy with something else. I got to know about it around 6 pm (on Monday),” BJP’s Manas Deka told Firstpost from New Delhi after he finally switched on his phone and picked up the call.
Before that, the moment Manas realised that the call is from a media house, he immediately said, “I am not that Manas.” Only after he was let known that Firstpost is aware about it, he did answer to the question on the number of calls he received with a sigh of relief. “I have attended some 150 calls today (Monday). I also have a huge number of missed calls. Besides I had kept my phone in switched off mode for a while,” he said.
Leave alone Mumbai, BJP’s Manas Deka was not even in the state of Maharashtra when all this ruckus happened. Tired and polite, although a BJP member, Manas sounded quite unlikely a person who would strangle the JNU student union leader even if he meets him in person. “I have had enough of this. I just wanted this matter to be closed,” he said, not uttering a single word of vengeance against Kanhaiya.
Are you listening, Mr Kanhaiya Kumar?
The other Manas Deka, who works in the BPO arm of IT giant TCS in Kolkata, however, could not be reached despite multiple attempts. His byte to TV channels later after the incident that he is not a BJP member or supported in all likelihood holds some water given the confusion with the name.
No sooner the matter out in public domain, the amount of hate messages that TCS’s Manas Deka got on his Facebook profile made him delete it. But the snooping crowd was quick enough to to dig this out from the account before it disappeared.
Leaving his like or dislike for Kanhaiya Kumar or JNU in the personal domain, it is however quite confounding to the common sense that any sane individual would choose a filled Boeing aircraft to strangulate another human being.
As Kanhaiya went about in Pune with his “Jai Bheem! Laal Salaam!” agenda, there was however not any remorse or apology from this emerging student leader who has lately taken the responsibility of reforming India.
Worse, even social media ignited with much venom willing to take on the TCS employee.
And there was another among many which jumped to the conclusion even before the formal investigation is over.
TCS has maintained silence on the issue so far.
In the meanwhile, no one had the time to think that in all this mayhem, there is an individual who bore the brunt of this fracas quite needlessly.
Kanhaiya Kumar now often embarks on tours to spread the message of Babasaheb Bhimnrao Ambedkar and democracy. On 14 April, while reaching Nagpur, the JNUSU president had tweeted: “As I arrive at Nagpur to spread his message of Dignity, Justice nd Peace.”
Left “Wondering?” how? Over to trolls.
New Delhi: The JNU on Monday slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on student leader Kanhaiya Kumar and rusticated three others for varying durations over their alleged role in the controversial 9 February event for which they were charged with sedition, an action which had sparked outrage and triggered protests.
Based on the findings of a high-level enquiry committee (HLEC), Umar Khalid has been rusticated for one semester and another leader Anirban Bhattacharya till 15 July. Umar has also been slapped a fine of Rs 20,000. Anirban has also been barred from JNU campus for a period of five years from 23 July.
Kashmiri student, Mujeeb Gattoo, has been rusticated for two semesters. A penalty of Rs 10,000 has been imposed on JNU students union (JNUSU) joint secretary Saurabh Sharma, the only ABVP member in the union.
JNU students union president Kanhaiya, Umar and Anirban were arrested on charges of sedition in February in connection with the controversial event and are out on bail.
Their arrests had triggered widespread protests at JNU and many other universities, following which the Opposition had accused the government of attempting to stifle dissent.
While Umar and Anirban were blamed for “triggering communal violence” and “disrupting” communal harmony on the campus, Mujeeb was found guilty of participating sloganeering. Kanhaiya was pronounced guilty of indiscipline and misconduct.
Those who have been imposed fine of Rs 20,000 each include former JNUSU President Ashutosh Kumar, former general secretary Chintu Kumari, current General Secretary Rama Naga, Aishwarya Adhikari, former Vice President Anant Prakash Narayan and Gargi for “violating” dissciplinary norms.
The campus has been made out of bounds for two former students — Banojyotsana Lahiri and Draupadi — while hostel facilities of Ashutosh Kumar have been withdrawn for a year and Komal Mohite till July 21.
In his reaction, Kanhaiya said the punitive action announced by the authorities was “simply unacceptable” and that the students rejected it. The students will hold an “all party” meeting later tonight to finalise future course of action.
“We completely reject this farcical enquiry report, as it is based on sheer vendetta and a biased enquiry. These are all innocent students, coming from extremely humble and underprivileged backgrounds,” JNUSU Vice President Shehla Rashid Shora said.
The JNU had constituted a five-member high-level enquiry committee to investigate the controversial event at the campus on February 9 and the panel had found some students guilty of violating disciplinary norms and disrupting communal harmony. on the campus.
An official of the JNU said financial penalty has been imposed on 14 students including Kanhaiya.
Anirban’s punishment is the harshest as he has been debarred from the university for five years.
When asked about punishment to Anirban, the official said, “During the period of rustication, the student ceases to exist on rolls of the university but has an option of joining back and re-enrolling in the same course after period of rustication is over.
“However, following debarment from the university for a period the student cannot enroll in any course or join any academic activities on campus,” the official said.
He said while Umar and Gattoo will have the option of resuming their courses once the period of rustication is over, Anirban has been given a window of a week (July 16-23) to complete his thesis.
“If he is unable to do so, he will not be able to seek an extension or re-enroll as he has been debarred from university for five years on completion of that week. If his PhD is not completed during this period he will not be able to do it from JNU for five years however he can enroll at some other university,” he said.
The official said disciplinary measures have been taken for not following university procedures, misinforming the university, misconduct and indiscipline, causing and colluding in the unauthorised entry of persons into the campus, putting up objectionable posters, arousing communal, caste or regional feelings and creating disharmony, blockade or forceful prevention of any normal movement of traffic and violation of security, safety rules notified by the university.
The committee imposed the fine on Sharma, who had objected to the event, for blocking traffic on the day it happened. Surprisingly, Aishwarya whose name was not mentioned in the report, has also been imposed the financial penalty.
“A farce is what this enquiry has been made from day 1 to witch-hunt students and punish them by hook and crook. I want to tell the VC that his friend Appa Rao did the same in Hyderabad university but our friends fought back. We will also do the same,” said Umar.
A senior university official said, “Based on the report of the high-level committee which arrived at its conclusion based on depositions, perusal of video clips (provided by JNU security and authenticated by forensic tests), and examination of documents on record, the university has decided to rusticate three students.
The report of the five-member panel has underlined lapses on part of administration and taken into account the role of outsiders in the event. However, no action has been taken against any administrative official.
“As per the committee findings, application for holding this event circumvented the permission process and the organisers disobeyed the instructions from the administration not to hold it and that amounted to wilful defiance,” the JNU official said.
Following the preliminary report of the committee, the university had suspended eight students. However, their suspension was revoked when the panel submitted it report on March 11.
Slamming the authorities for the action against the students, Shora said,”They are all dedicated activists and this is a conspiracy to crush anti-Modi voices.
“Not only will we not remain silent against this anti-people government, we will also challenge this sham of a report. The punishments are all based on one-sided statements from ABVP members, and our repeated calls to conduct a fair enquiry were ignored.”
Accusing the Vice Chancellor of “taking directions” from the Centre and acting as an “RSS loyalist”, she said the students will launch a countrywide campaign to “expose” the government’s “anti-student and anti-Dalit” character.
“Rakesh Bhatnagar, the head of the committee, is the treasurer of anti-reservationist Youth for Equality, and most students who have been punished belong to Dalit, Muslim and backward castes,” she said.
ABVP’s Sharma said punishments announced by JNU is a “compromise and not penalty”.
“Penalising me for blocking traffic for stopping the event is injustice,” he said.
JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya on Monday said the decision to rusticate them from the varsity was “unacceptable” and termed as “farce” the inquiry by a high-level committee even as the students’ union threatened a countrywide campaign on the matter.In his reaction, JNU students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar, who has been slapped with a fine of Rs 10,000 by the varsity administration, said the punitive action handed down on the basis of a “farcical” probe was “simply unacceptable” and that the Union rejects it.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Terming the decision against them as “unacceptable”, Anirban and Umar alleged the authority’s action amounted to a “witch-hunt” under the “diktats” of RSS.”The JNU administration declares its allegiance to RSS, once again! After allowing police to enter campus to unleash the worst repression…now the JNU admin has come down with its own list of punishments. A farce is what this inquiry has been from day one, made to witch-hunt and punish students by hook or crook. Do we need to remind you, Mr Jagdish Kumar (JNU VC) that unlike you the students and teachers of this campus are not pliant stooges of the RSS,” Umar posted on Facebook.JNUSU vice president Shehla Rashid Shora said, “We will launch a countrywide campaign to expose this government s anti-student, anti-Dalit character.”Shehla said the action against the students was based on “sheer vendetta and a biased inquiry” and “one-sided” statements from ABVP members.”The VC is taking directions from the Central govt. He should have acted first as an academician and then as an RSS loyalist. Rakesh Bhatnagar, the head of the committee, is the treasurer of anti-reservationist Youth for Equality, and most students who have been punished belong to Dalit, Muslim and backward castes,” she said.JNU on Monday slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on JNUSU president Kumar and rusticated PhD scholars Umar and Anirban for varying duration in connection with the controversial February 9 event for which they were charged with sedition, an action which had triggered widespread outrage and protests.Based on the findings of a committee, Umar has been rusticated for one semester and slapped with a fine of Rs 20,000, Anirban has been rusticated till July 15.
Kanhaiya Kumar, JNU Student Union’s President, alleged that on his way to Pune from Mumbai, a man tried to “strangulate” him on board a Jet Airways flight on Sunday.
The passenger, who allegedly strangled Kanhaiya, denies all claims of any attack and said it was a ‘cheap publicity’ stunt by the JUNSU president, adding “My hand just happened to brush his neck as I was trying to balance myself on an aching leg. I do not know him personally though I have seen his pictures,” reported Hindustan Times.
The Mumbai Police said that the student leader was involved in a tussle with a fellow passenger when the aircraft was on the tarmac at the Mumbai airport.
After Kanhaiya brought the issue up with Jet Airways officials, they off-loaded Kanhaiya and the assailant, identified as Manas Deka from the aircraft. Kanhaiya’s companions were also asked to get off the flight, reported the Hindustan Times.
Kanhaiya, agitated with Jet Airways deplaning him, tweeted the following:
Manas Deka, a TSC employee, was returning to Pune from Kolkata. The Kolkata-Mumbai-Pune flight halted at Mumbai for half an hour, according to a report in The Indian Express. Described as a ‘strong BJP supporter’ in Kanhaiya’s tweet, Deka denied being a BJP supporter and even said that he has never voted in his entire life, added The Indian Express report.
According to Deka’s statement, he “accidentally tripped” on Kanhaiya as there was little space to walk and that he “immediately apologised,” said The Indian Express report. Deka further added that three or four more passengers, who he believes were Kanhaiya’s companions, started to accuse him of trying to strangle Kanhaiya and this prompted the student leader to join in the outcry.
The Hindustan Times report said that the Maharashtra government has ordered a probe into the matter. The report added that a non-cognisable complaint was registered against Deka first and then by Sunday afternoon, a complaint against Kanhaiya was also registered. A senior police official, speaking to Hindustan Times said that it was one of Kanhaiya’s associates that filed the complaint against Deka and further added that Kanhaiya also refused to undergo a medical examination to assert the strangulation.
Maharashtra’s minister of state (home) Ram Shinde, said that Kanhaiya was trying to malign BJP’s image and added that he had been provided full security on the aircraft, reported Hindustan Times. The report added “Kanhaiya Kumar was travelling with three other persons. He had been allotted a window seat and thus, while crossing over apassenger who was seated in the middle, he got into a fight with him. The other passenger did not even know this man was Kanhaiya Kumar and he, too, is alleging he was beaten up by the student leader,” Shinde said.
Jet Airways issued an official statement which said that some guests “have been off-loaded at Mumbai airport in the interest of operational safety.”
This piece is a response to an article by Bikram Vohra titled ‘Jet did the right thing by deplaning Kanhaiya and assailant: Here’s why‘
First, read it.
Sunday morning TV channels and various publications, including Firstpost, reported that the JNU student union president Kanhaiya Kumar alleged that a man on a Jet Airways flight tried to strangle him. Everyone who carried the piece were very careful to use the word ‘alleged’. It was imperative because the strangulation, which was alleged, was not confirmed in those words. Jet Airways released this one line statement after the news broke: “Some guests on board this morning’s flight Jet Airways fight 9W 618 Mumbai to Pune have been off loaded at Mumbai airport in the interest of operational safety.”
This was the only confirmed statement media houses received, after Kanhaiya alleged the ‘strangulation’. The Jet Airways statement did not mention names, it did not mention strangle or strangulation. What we know for sure is that two people were deplaned because they posed a threat to the flight’s operational safety. Except for these facts, everything else is hearsay. Even what Kanhaiya Kumar claims.
But clearly we do not know enough. Because here’s this piece that will tell you that Kanhaiya Kumar was ‘strangled’ because he made “enemies”. Because that’s the treatment you get when “you go around having vituperative outbursts on the mike and being petty in that the comments on the IPL and linking it to the drought were pointless since the courts have already issued marching orders.” Who cares about facts? This is how it is. If it is a person we do not agree with, strangulated or not, he should be deplaned. Because the Montreal Convention tells us so. Ok, I might get accused of getting personal here.
Let me rephrase.
It takes a strong feeling of complete displeasure to overlook an alleged situation and make it a real one and then blame the alleged victim for the problem. It is probable that Kanhaiya might have blown the thing out of proportion, but we still do not know that. The only information, believable information, is that two people were deplaned. But off late there’s this overwhelming need for people to take a side and prove that the side they are on is right. Pun unintended.
Kanhaiya Kumar catapulted to popularity after a video surfaced in which he was shown shouting anti-national slogans — it later turned out to be a doctored video. Rest is history.
He was in prison for 21 days. He was beaten up by goons dressed as lawyers in the Patiala House court premises in New Delhi. There were sedition charges. His supporters were arrested after a dramatic chase (and all of this is very un-alleged). But the JNUSU president emerged fearless and even more determined to take on a government he was not happy with. What is the harm in that? Let’s say this boy does actually want to join Indian politics. So what? Aren’t we taught our entire lives to speak our mind? Yet, when there’s an example of a PhD scholar from a so-called ‘left-leaning’ college standing up and fighting for what he and his fellow mates believe in, there are skirmishes. There is mud-slinging. There is politics of sorts. And that’s when Kanhaiya, from a student who speaks his mind, becomes a Kanhaiya, someone who speaks the language of a Congress or a Left Front. Wait for a while, soon Kanhaiya will be blamed for being pro-BJP!
According to the author, Kanhaiya should “stop whining” because he has “become mean, cheap and tacky and your speeches are now demagoguery at its worst best. And when all you do is underscore problems and offer not a scintilla of solution then you have great nuisance value but that is it.” And precisely for this reason he has created the situation he is in.
So, today if I have a problem with a political leader with heavy clout and crazy mass following in the country, it’s totally justifiable for someone to “strangle” me and then deplane me because of a Convention. And if I try to talk about it, I will be told that I deserved it. There’s a word for such extreme reactions and it starts with I.
The author of the aforementioned article is not at fault here, the problem is with the thinking. The attitude that every voice that says a different thing has to be muffled into something which soothes your senses and suits your sensibility. Otherwise, you belong in Pakistan. You cannot be an Indian.
I agree on one point with this author. “No pilot in this day and age is going to tolerate an on-board physical scuffle.” True. But it becomes a big deal because the person involved is Kanhaiya Kumar and guess what, we did not make him a celebrity, the haters did. They hated him so much that he is everywhere now and they don’t know what to do with the sheer magnitude. So when this author says:
“…Do not flatter yourself.
You were not singled out, dude, cool it…”
I am sure Kanhaiya is feeling super cool right now. Seeing journalists slugging it out for or against him. But he too would be a fool to do that. It is not about him. It is what he represents.
Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar on Sunday alleged that a man tried to strangulate him inside a Jet Airways aircraft.
He further alleged that the Jet Airways staff refused to take action against the man who assaulted him. Reports said that both, Kumar and the man who allegedly assaulted him, were deplaned after the clash.
The student leader, who was on way to Pune this morning to address an event in Mumbai, claimed his assailant was a BJP supporter called Manas Deka, who works with the TCS.
According to a report in Hindustan Times, Jet Airways issued a statement but did not respond to Kanhaiya’s charges against them. “Some guests on board this morning’s flight Jet Airways fight 9W 618 Mumbai to Pune have been off loaded at Mumbai airport in the interest of operational safety.” Police carried out an initial probe and revealed that it was not a case of assault but the two pushed each other over a petty argument.
Kanhaiya’s allegation comes just a day after he had lashed out at the Narendra Modi dispensation, terming it a “government of selfies and jumlas” as he pushed for enactment of a law to prevent caste-based prejudice in educational institutions.
The JNUSU President, who hit headlines after being arrested on charges of sedition in the aftermath of an event at the JNU campus where alleged anti-India slogans were raised, had gone hammer and tongs against the NDA-led Centre and its pet projects.
“The Modi government is coining only jumlas (idiomatic expressions) such as Make in India, which should actually be Fake in India; Stand Up India, Start Up India, Selfie with Daughter etc. It has become a government of selfies and ‘jumlas’.
“The reality is these are only tall promises by which the government is fooling the public as nothing positive was coming off the ground,” he had said.
The 29-year-old was speaking on the topic ‘Student-Youth Assembly Against Discrimination’ at an event in suburban Tilak Nagar.
Kumar had said that at a time when entire Marathwada region in Maharashtra was reeling under drought, “RSS-led government” was busy holding IPL matches in the state.
“I heard a wax statue of Modiji has been carved out. I also heard a 12-year old girl in Marathwada died as she ventured out to fetch water in scorching heat. Let that wax statue of Modiji be put in Marathwada,” he had said.
Kumar, who had earlier ruled out campaigning in the West Bengal and Kerala Assembly polls, has now decided to support a fellow JNU comrade who is in the fray for the 16 May elections in Kerala, according to PTI.
Ever since he walked out of Tihar jail, Kumar had been maintaining he was a student and not a “politician” and that he had no plans of campaigning in the Assembly polls.
However, he said that he decided to join the campaign after Muhammed Muhassin, CPI candidate for Pattambi seat in Palakkad, mooted the idea. “He has stood by me, so I decided to hit the campaign trail,” Kanhaiya said.
With inputs from PTI
In a shocking incident, a man allegedly tried to strangulate JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar on board a Jet airways flight. The man was later detained, PTI reported.Kanhaiya Kumar in a series of tweets narrated the incident. He alleged that a man tried to strangulate him. The student leader also complained that Jet Airways didn’t take any step against the man after the incident. He said, <!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Later, revealing the attacker’s name, Kanhaiya alleged that the person is a strong supporter of BJP and works for IT giant TCS. Jet airways on its part issued a statement saying, “Some guests on board this morning’s flight Mumbai to Pune were off loaded at Mumbai airport in interest of operational safety. At Jet Airways, the safety and security of our guests and crew is always of prime importance”.Kanhaiya Kumar shot to national fame after he was arrested on sedition charges after a pro-Afzal program was held in JNU where he was allegedly present. Kanhaiya was attacked inside the Patiala court house premises. He has also been attacked inside JNU. Plans have been uncovered of people trying to kill him. Kanhaiya’s car was stoned when he came to Nagpur last week to attend a program on BR Ambedkar. This incident is only the latest in the series of attacks against the new anti-Modi posterboy.
New Delhi: A country-made pistol and a threat letter against JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar, purportedly written by a man who had earlier threatened the student leader over Facebook, were recovered from a bus operating between an ISBT and JNU campus following which Delhi Police is mulling enhancing his security.
The weapon was recovered in a bus operating between Kashmere Gate ISBT and the JNU campus, after the driver spotted an unclaimed bag and raised an alarm.
Police is trying to ascertain identity of the bag’s owner and several persons have been questioned, a senior official said on Friday.
With the gun, there was also a letter which said that Kanhaiya and Umar Khalid, who were arrested under sedition charge over a controversial event in JNU campus, will be decapitated.
The letter was purportedly written by the person who had threatened Kumar over Facebook earlier saying that men with weapons are already present inside the campus, ready to kill him any moment, the official said.
Kumar doesn’t get security cover inside the campus but the university authorities have clearly been instructed to inform Vasant Kunj (North) police station everytime he leaves the campus and security is provided accordingly.
After the alert, the police are likely to increase his security cover and also enhance vigil around the JNU area, the official added.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea challenging the award of whopping Rs 45 lakh to the family of Dadri victim Mohammed Akhlaq on the ground that it was violative of norms regulating the compensation. “Heard the petitioner-in-person. We find no merit in the Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” a bench comprising Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by one Ritesh Chaudhary against the dismissal of his PIL by the High Court on the issue.Besides Rs 45 lakh as compensation, the Uttar Pradesh government has also decided to give four houses to the surviving members of Akhlaq’s family. Earlier, the court had sought response from the Centre and Delhi Police on Jaiswal’s plea seeking an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against three lawyers in the case. These lawyers were allegedly caught in a sting operation.The plea has sought “suo motu contempt proceeding” against lawyers Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma on the ground that they have allegedly been caught on camera talking about the attacks.It also sought a direction to set up Special Investigation Team to probe the incidents of violent attacks on journalists, students, teachers, defence lawyers and Kanhaiya on February 15 and 17 by some advocates in the premises of Patiala House courts during the hearing of the sedition case involving the JNUSU leader.The plea was filed in pursuance of an oral observation by a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar, which is hearing the matters arising out of violence in the trial court premises in the JNU case, that the allegations are fresh ones and hence, a fresh petition is required to be filed.The plea alleged that the three lawyers interfered in the “administration of justice” and willfully violated the orders passed by the apex court on February 17.The petition which also makes Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police as parties, has said facts have come to light that there was “blatant violation of the rule of law” in the trial court premises.
New Delhi: Supreme Court on Monday questioned Delhi Police over the presence of some unsolicited persons in black robes in a courtroom where JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar was allegedly assaulted before being produced in the sedition case.
“Why they were allowed? Why the police did not take any action? The whole situation was tense and high-voltage drama was going on from Patiala court to this court.
“If police force is acting like this then they (petitioner Kamini Jaiswal) are justified in seeking relevant inquiry,” a bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre said.
The observation came when senior advocate Ajit Sinha, appearing for the police, referred to the report of Delhi High Court Registrar General to drive home the point that on 17 February, no unsolicited persons were allowed inside court number four of Patiala House Courts where Kanhaiya was to be produced.
He said two persons in black robes were present in other courtroom where the accused and accompanying cops stayed before the judicial proceedings that took place in another room.
Later, police found out about the persons who turned out to be lawyers, he said.
At the outset, senior advocate KTS Tulsi, appearing for lawyer N D Jaiprakash who alleged that he was beaten in the Patiala House Courts, said the police connived with some accused lawyers who assaulted his client and mediapersons.
“You allege that you were personally attacked. Tell us, what reliefs which you are seeking? Don’t talk about all the things,” the bench said.
The bench then heard lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing Jaiswal, who sought an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against three lawyers who were allegedly caught on camera “bragging and boasting” that they had beaten up the JNUSU President and others, including journalists, in the lower court complex.
The apex court has now posted the matter for further hearing on 22 April.
Earlier, the court had sought response from the Centre and Delhi Police on Jaiswal’s plea seeking an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against three lawyers in the case. These lawyers were allegedly caught in a sting operation.
The plea has sought “suo motu contempt proceeding” against lawyers Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma on the ground that they have allegedly been caught on camera talking about the attacks.
It also sought a direction to set up Special Investigation Team to probe the incidents of violent attacks on journalists, students, teachers, defence lawyers and Kanhaiya on February 15 and 17 by some advocates in the premises of Patiala House courts during the hearing of the sedition case involving the JNUSU leader.
The plea was filed in pursuance of an oral observation by a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar, which is hearing the matters arising out of violence in the trial court premises in the JNU case, that the allegations are fresh ones and hence, a fresh petition is required to be filed.
The plea alleged that the three lawyers interfered in the “administration of justice” and willfully violated the orders passed by the apex court on February 17.
The petition which also makes Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police as parties, has said facts have come to light that there was “blatant violation of the rule of law” in the trial court premises.
Supreme Court on Monday questioned Delhi Police over the presence of some unsolicited persons in black robes in a courtroom where JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar was allegedly assaulted before being produced in the sedition case.”Why they were allowed? Why the police did not take any action? The whole situation was tense and high-voltage drama was going on from Patiala court to this court. “If police force is acting like this then they (petitioner Kamini Jaiswal) are justified in seeking relevant inquiry,” a bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and AM Sapre said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The observation came when senior advocate Ajit Sinha, appearing for the police, referred to the report of Delhi High Court Registrar General to drive home the point that on February 17, no unsolicited persons were allowed inside court number four of Patiala House Courts where Kanhaiya was to be produced. He said two persons in black robes were present in other courtroom where the accused and accompanying cops stayed before the judicial proceedings that took place in another room.
ALSO READ JNU may rusticate Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya for 2-5 years, fine Kanhaiya Kumar: ReportLater, police found out about the persons who turned out to be lawyers, he said.At the outset, senior advocate KTS Tulsi, appearing for lawyer ND Jaiprakash who alleged that he was beaten in the Patiala House Courts, said the police connived with some accused lawyers who assaulted his client and mediapersons. “You allege that you were personally attacked. Tell us, what reliefs which you are seeking? Don’t talk about all the things,” the bench said.The bench then heard lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing Jaiswal, who sought an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against three lawyers who were allegedly caught on camera “bragging and boasting” that they had beaten up the JNUSU President and others, including journalists, in the lower court complex. The apex court has now posted the matter for further hearing on April 22.
Union Minister for Food Processing Harsimrat Kaur Badal on Wednesday described as shameful JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar’s remarks suggesting that there was a difference between the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots.”It is a matter of shame that a student leader has forgotten the issues of students and is saying the 1984 riots was a ‘mob-led massacre’. This despite the fact that the riots were organised at the behest of the government…Even after 30 years, we are fighting for action against the accused,” the senior SAD leader said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Reacting to reported remarks of AAP leaders that their party would sent SAD leaders behind bars in connection with the cases of drugs, she said, “The drug issue was raked up before our government came to power.”The then Congress government at the Center got an enquiry conducted by five central agencies but could not find anything incriminating against us,” she said.
New Delhi: Facing flak for apparently suggesting there was a difference between the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots, Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar on Wednesday retracted from his position.
Terming both the 1984 and 2002 riots as “state-led pogroms”, Kanhaiya Kumar said he was “misinterpreted and misrepresented yet again”.
“I have been misinterpreted and misrepresented yet again…Both 1984 and 2002 were indeed state-led pogroms for which justice is still awaited,” Kanhaiya Kumar wrote on his social media page.
“There isn’t an iota of doubt that Emergency represents one of the darkest periods of Indian democracy. My organization AISF (All India Students Federation) strongly opposed and fought against the state repression during Emergency,” he added.
In the post, Kumar also drew parallels between the 1975 Emergency and the present situation while accusing the central government of “carrying forward its fascist agenda”.
“The current central government is relentlessly carrying forward its fascist agenda using state power, as visible in the recent authoritarian actions against students and all voices of dissent across the country. What we now witness is unprecedented — a form of undeclared Emergency,” he added.
The student leader on Monday differentiated between the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and Gujarat’s 2002 anti-Muslim violence, saying the Gujarat violence was carried out through state machinery while the other was caused by mob frenzy.
New posters have come up on the JNU campus that describe Holi as an “anti-women” festival as “historically it has sexually abused Dalit women in the name of celebrations”.The campus, which was recently rocked by a controversy triggered by an event last month to mark the death anniversary of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, has become the nerve centre of a debate on freedom of speech.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Titled “what is holy about Holi”, the posters plastered on the walls of eateries, markets and schools on the campus are also doing the rounds of social media.”Why does Brahminical-patriarchal India celebrate the burning of Holika, an asura bahujan woman? What is holy about holi? Historically, the festival has also sexually abused Dalit women in the name of celebrations,” the posters read. The text on the posters further read “celebration of Holi is against womanhood”.The posters carry the name of a group — Flames of Resistance (FOR). A JNUSU office bearer said she hasn’t heard of any such group. “It seems to be some new group”.Recently, a group of students had burnt ancient legal text Manusmriti alleging some of its excerpts had “derogatory” references to women.
A delegation of JNU students on Monday met officials at NHRC over the alleged crackdown and arrest of students in Hyderabad Central University and demanded concrete action against its VC Appa Rao in connection with the Rohith Vemula issue. Twenty seven people including 25 students and two faculty members of the varsity were arrested on March 23 in connection with the recent violence on the campus. However, they were today granted bail by a local court.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The delegation which met National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Registrar CK Chaturvedi submitted a compilation of testimonials of HCU students regarding the “inhuman treatment” meted out to them on March 22 and demanded that Rao be removed from the post of VC. “We compiled the testimonials of HCU students who were on the receiving end of the crackdown, in a CD, and submitted it to the NHRC. We have especially pointed out the case of a student Uday Bhanu who was physically assaulted. That is the case of human rights violation,” JNUSU Vice President Shehla Rashid Shora said. “We hope NHRC takes this case seriously and does something something concrete about it,” she added.Many students from different universities including JNU, DU and Jamia Milia Islamia had gathered in front of NHRC building to express solidarity with the students of HCU. Carrying placards and raising slogans, the students demanded the removal of Rao and HRD Minister Smriti Irani from their respective posts as well as the enactment of ‘Rohith Act’ against caste discrimination in educational institutions. Celebrations broke out among the protestors as the news about the release of HCU students on bail broke out and the students hailed the release as “the victory of our struggle”.The NHRC had, on March 25, issued notices to the top Union HRD and Telangana government officials over action against the students and is now awaiting for their reports. Chaturvedi reportedly assured the delegation of “proper action” once the report from Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission is received. “The Commission did not know about the magnitude of assault on the students in HCU. We had to inform them. They have promised to inform us once they get the report from the APHRC,” said Rama, a member of JNUSU and the delegation.
New Delhi: Hearing on JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar in Delhi High Court on Wednesday saw the AAP government taking a firm stand that there was no violation of any bail condition by the student leader, even as Delhi Police sought to buy time saying the matter was being probed.
The police said it cannot comment on the pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to Kanhaiya without verifying facts and they were investigating whether any bail condition was violated.
The investigators’ response came after the Delhi government categorically stated that no grounds have been shown by petitioners which warrant cancellation of Kanhaiya’s interim bail at this stage.
The court was hearing arguments, which would continue on 28 April, on separate pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail to Kanhaiya on the ground that his speech after his release from Tihar Jail here earlier this month was “anti-national” and he had violated the bail conditions. They have also sought initiation of perjury proceedings against him.
However, special public prosecutor Shailendra Babbar, appearing for the Delhi Police, said “as regards the allegations that he (Kanhaiya) has violated the bail conditions, this fact is disputed. Unless verified by us, we cannot comment on this. The investigation is going on.”
“We have not preferred any cancellation application. If the court will issue notice, we will come back to the court. I have to verify and unless verified I cannot comment,” he told Justice Suresh Kait.
Delhi government’s senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra, however, told the bench the state government has left it to the court. “If the court says that yes the bail conditions have been violated, we have nothing to say.”
However, “no single ground has been shown which satisfy the condition that he (Kanhaiya) has violated the bail conditions at this stage. No violation is shown. They (petitioners) must place the grounds on which they are seeking cancellation of bail,” Mehra said.
“There is no single act by which it could be said that there is violation of the order,” he said, adding, “Courts are conscious of the fact that if their orders have been violated, then bail must be cancelled.”
During the hearing, the counsel representing one of the petitioner Vineet Jindal claimed that after Kanhaiya was released, he had organised a press conference in JNU campus.
“After his release what he did, kindly see. He says in Kashmir women are raped by security personnel. I do not know why the police is not taking action against him,” he said.
The court, however, said, “What is the hurry? If the police is not taking any action then you can go to court. You said you have already given a complaint to the police. If he (Kanhaiya) had violated any condition, the other side (police) will look into it.”
To this, the lawyer said, “State is not doing anything for reasons best known to them. May be they are under
The bench then asked him to argue on the point of locus. Advocate R P Luthra, who appeared for other petitioner Prashant Kumar Umrao, claimed that Kanhaiya had violated bail conditions by giving statements “challenging the integrity and sovereignty of the country”.
“The conditions so imposed on him (Kanhaiya) have been violated by him and he has breached the faith shown on him by the court. The concession granted to him should be taken away,” he said.
“This court ought to have taken suo motu cognizance of the matter. I know judges are too busy to see the information which are available in public domain. I am presuming that whatever was there in public domain, the judges have not seen that,” he argued.
When the bench asked Luthra about his locus in the matter, he said he was intervenor before Supreme Court in the matter.
“We are not supposed to see what is there on TV,” the bench said, adding, “State and Central government are looking into the matter.”
Luthra responded, “They (State and Central government) are looking only for votes. They have failed.”
The court, however, asked, “You satisfy the court on locus. You have not satisfied the court on locus yet.”
When the court asked Luthra to show the order of the apex court in which he was made an intervenor in the matter, the counsel said he was making a statement on the bar regarding this and he would soon place the order before the court.
When Mehra said that Luthra should be first asked toplace before the court the apex court order, the latter said,
“In this case, the standing counsel comes in court and says he has no objection if bail is granted to the accused.”
Mehra shot back, “Who is he to say what a standing counsel should do.”
At this juncture, the bench asked the counsel, “You confine your arguments to your plea.”
On the issue of locus, Mehra said there is no locus of the petitioners as neither the state nor the police have
moved the court for cancellation of bail.
Luthra, however, argued that the evidence are in domain of the state and a status report can be called from them.
He said he would hand over a CD containing the footage run by TV channels on Kanhaiya’s speech and the state can verify these facts.
When the court again asked him to satisfy it on the point of locus, the counsel referred to a judgement of the apex court and said he can place other verdicts on this point.
The court thereafter posted the matter for April 28.
Luthra insisted he would argue the matter on Wednesday itself but the court said it would hear the arguments on the next date of hearing. “Try to maintain the decorum. Come on the next date,” the court said.
Besides seeking cancellation of interim bail, petitioner Umrao has moved another plea for initiation of perjury proceedings against Kanhaiya alleging that he had “deliberately and wilfully filed a false affidavit” before the court while securing the relief.
Kanhaiya, who was granted six months interim bail on March 2, is facing sedition charge in connection with an event at JNU on February 9 where anti-national slogans were allegedly raised and Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru hailed as a ‘martyr’.
New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University students leader Kanhaiya Kumar called upon Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi at his official residence here on Tuesday.
Kumar led a delegation of Jawaharlal Nehru University students Union (JNUSU) and All India Students’ Federation (AISF) leaders to meet Gandhi at his Tughlak Lane residence.
This is the first time that the Congress vice president has met Kanhaiya since he was released on bail from a prison here where he was lodged following an uproar over alleged anti-national activities at the JNU campus. The student leader was charged with sedition.
Earlier, Gandhi had come out in full support for Kanhaiya amid the unrest at the JNU.
New Delhi: Taking a dig at ruling BJP over its stand on the JNU row, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Sunday said nationalism is now decided by whether one can say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ or not. He said people should have the right to choose what they believe is correct and still be tolerant of others’ ideas in a democracy.
“Today nationalism is decided by whether or not one can say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. I am happy to say it, but should I also oblige everyone to say it? “Our Constitution gives people the right not to say it just as it gives people the right to say it as well. I will choose when to say it and that’s democracy,” Tharoor said addressing students at JNU on Sunday night.
Tharoor said our country is not just ‘Hindi, Hindu and Hindustan’ and called for an India ‘more accepting of diversity’ which he said has been the tradition throughout history. “India is not just Hindi, Hindu and Hindustan. We want an India with both Krishna and Kanhaiya Kumar. We want in India people from every corner of this vast land an equal stake in our future. “If we understand that the Indian civilisation allows many religions, celebrates range of opinions and is today sustained by constitutional democracy which stands for certain values that all of us claim as our own, if this is the Indian legacy we can live, then we can all stand under that flag and celebrate,” he said.
Tharoor was speaking on ‘JNU and Nationalism’ outside the administrative hall of the varsity which has been the centre of protests ever since sedition charges were slapped on three students over an event held where anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.
Tharoor appreciated the students for stirring a debate on vital issues in India, saying student days are the days “to expand one’s consciousness”. “You may have come here for education but you are also educating the nation. What is happening here has given the whole nation an education in the vital issues of dissent and democracy, sedition and of course of ‘azaadi’ (freedom),” he said.
Tharoor’s nearly 40-minute long speech was dotted with historical anecdotes and personal experiences and he repeatedly quoted personalities like Jawaharlal Nehru and Everlyn Beatrice Hall to drive home the idea of tolerance and diversity and their importance in India.
Earlier on Sunday, JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar had said that the fight of JNU students was “not against the country but for the country,” and had accused the BJP of diverting from “real issues”.
“We will protest if the election is fought on the issue of nationalism, we will protest if the real issues are sidelined. We will remind you… to face the real issues of this nation, the issues of poverty, Dalits, farmers and other marginalised sections of the Indian society,” he said.
On the allegation that JNU students overstay their time in the university, Kanhaiya cited the importance of research in nation building and said it was on par with those of soldiers, farmers and industrialists. “Research is as important for a nation as the sacrifices of farmers and soldiers. If we don’t think, we won’t speak and the entire fight is about thinking and speaking,” he said.
Before the lectures, a letter, purportedly “from Rohith Vemula” to the Indian President “demanding justice” was circulated among JNU students.
JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar wore it as a badge of great honour and Umar Khalid, who was released on Friday after spending 25 days in jail, flaunted it too.
They flashed their jail sojourn as a medal of their rebellious-revolutionary zeal. Students of JNU once again gathered at the administrative block to celebrate the release of Umar and Anirban Bhattacharya from judicial custody on Friday evening. Chants of “lal salaam” were once again shouted at the highest pitch possible, and they reverberated in the campus.
What differentiated Khalid’s speech from that of Kumar was the undiluted angst against government, and minimal attempt to create an alibi for himself by expressing his deep faith in the Constitution as Kanhaiya has been doing since 11 February and all the way to his recent speech at the India Today Conclave.
In fact, a new slogan was coined by the JNUSU president: “Jai jawan, jai kisan, jai samvidhan” on 18 March.
Speaking at the India Today Conclave on Friday, Kanhaiya said, “There is no doubt that Kashmir is an integral part of India. And since Kashmiris are Indians, we can always discuss their issues.”
If what a JNUSU councillor — without any party affiliation — said is to believed, this acceptance by Kanhaiya is new-found and very recent. This ideology of convenience and flip-flops that is intrinsic to a host of professional politicians is something that the JNUSU president has already mastered.
While opposing Kanhaiya’s bail petition on 2 March, additional solicitor-general (ASG) Tushar Mehta said that speech given by Kanhaiya on 11 February (in which he took a vow on the Constitution of India) was part of his strategy to create a defence.
Ram Nayan Verma, a student of the School of Computational and Integrative Sciences at JNU, narrated the first council meeting, highlighting how Kanhaiya along with other Leftist students opposed a resolution to accept that Kashmir is an integral part of India.
“In the council meeting, every member has right to put forward a resolution which is debated and then put on vote. Just after the JNUSU election, at the very first meeting, I put forward a resolution that Kashmir is an integral part of India. The reason for putting forward this resolution was that a section of student here feels and tries to enforce this idea that Kashmir is not an integral part of India. They feel India has occupied Kashmir. This is an important assertion of the politics of some students here. I wanted to set the record straight and wanted to oppose it. All the Left parties opposed this resolution, including Shehla Rashid and Rama Naga — both members of JNUSU. Kanhaiya being the president of the union has the only casting vote. It was a council meeting that continued for six hours till 2 am”.
Verma added, “They (left parties) may now assert that they believe in the Indian Constitution, but they have always favoured separatism in Kashmir which is a grave challenge to the constitutional spirit.”
While on one hand, Kanhaiya is putting the jawan on the same pedestal as the samvidhan, he never thought twice before accusing the same jawans of raping women in Kashmir in his speech on 8 March. The current discourse of JNU’s Left largely seems to building on hyperbolic rhetoric, half-truths, misrepresented facts and jargon.
Consider this: JNUSU vice-president Shehla, speaking at the India Today Conclave said that the “bail order of Umar Khalid says that the section 124(a) sedition charge does not apply in his case”. This statement was factually wrong. Reportedly no where judgement mentions this. Rather, in talking about section 124(a), the judgement discuss various punishments that the section attracts but states that it does not “wish to delve further in this regard at this stage of the matter”.
A trial court here, on Friday, granted interim bail for six months to Jawaharlal Nehru University students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya who were arrested on charges of sedition.Khalid and Bhattacharya, studying Ph.D at the Centre for Historical Studies, were arrested on February 23, after they surrendered in connection with an event held at the JNU campus in memory of Parliament attacks convict Afzal Guru, where allegedly anti-national slogans were raised.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The duo, who has spent more than 20 days behind bars, was granted interim bail for six months on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 each.The pronouncement of bail by a special judge at the Patiala House Court was met with much jubilation by professors Rajat Datta and Sangeeta Dasgupta of JNU, who stood surety for them. The students are expected to leave Tihar prison once the bail formalities are complete.The court based its decision mainly on the arguments of parity made by the defence counsels on March 16. Defence counsels sought for bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar, JNU student union president, who was recently released on bail. The duo stated their innocence and claimed that the videos submitted as evidence and based on which the charges were framed were “false and doctored”.The court observed that despite Kanhaiya Kumar being accused as one of the main conspirators in the status report submitted by the Delhi Police (para 37), the additional public prosecutor in his argument submitted that perhaps Kumar was not involved in organising the event. This same report was also submitted in the high court during the consideration of Kumar’s bail application.In its 12-page bail order, the court said that “although the allegations levelled against Umar and Anirban are per se serious in nature but as claimed by the police themselves, the video footage of the incident has been sent to the forensic sciences laboratory. Its analysis and final report will certainly take time.”Defence counsels argued that the allegation made against their clients fell short of the ingredients of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Counsels argued that the FIR lodged by Saurabh Sharma, joint secretary of JNUSU, was a result of political rivalry among the students.The Delhi police had strongly opposed bail stating that the two students not only organised the event but also actively participated in raising anti-national slogans. The police argued that the posters distributed for the cancelled event in question were conceptualised by Bhattacharya and approved by Khalid.It also placed on record evidence that proved that Khalid had also organised for a public address (PA) system, which was used during the event. Despite their permission to hold the event revoked, the duo went ahead and held the event as originally scheduled. It went on to state that the charges levelled against accused were based on footage shots by individuals and various independent witness statements.
A scheduled meeting between Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Kanhaiya Kumar had to be cancelled on Thursday as the JNUSU president failed to reach the Delhi Secretariat on time, “upsetting” the CM who had waited for nearly an hour.CPI National Secretary D Raja, who also waited for Kanhaiya along with the CM, said that the student leader could not reach as he got stuck in a “heavy traffic jam”, which apparently did not go down well with the CM, sources said. Kanhaiya was supposed to meet Kejriwal at 6 PM for which Raja, accompanied by his daughter Aparajita who is also a JNU student, had reached before scheduled time.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”He could not reach on time as he got stuck in a traffic jam. By the time he reached near Supreme Court, the CM had already been waiting for nearly one hour. “So they spoke over the telephone and agreed to meet most likely on Saturday. Kejriwal had prior engagements regarding the upcoming Budget so he could not wait more,” Raja told reporters.While Kanhaiya could not be reached for his comments, his party maintained that since Delhi Police could not provide him security for moving out of the campus, he got late and later got stuck in traffic near ITO. However, a Delhi government official said that contrary to Raja’s statement, any future meeting between the two has not yet been agreed upon. “Raja, despite being a national-level leader could reach on time but Kanhaiya could not. The CM was upset as he could not meet him and had to leave for prior engagements,” sources said.
The Delhi High Court will hear the plea seeking the cancellation of the interim bail granted to Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar on March 23.This development comes after the plea was transferred for a hearing before a different bench of the Delhi High Court, after the counsel for the petitioner objected to a “warning” by the bench to his client that he would have to bear costs if the matter was dismissed.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Justice Pratibha Rani, who had granted interim bail to Kumar, asked the counsel whether the petitioner was personally present in the courtroom, and then warned him that he should be ready to bear costs if the petition were to be dismissed.Meanwhile, expressing concerns over the High-Level Enquiry Committee that has been set up to look into the events of the night of February 9 at the varsity campus, the JNUSU has asserted that they will oppose any disciplinary action based upon the findings of the ‘partial and biased’ enquiryFollowing a council meeting yesterday, a resolution was passed by the Students’ Union, stating that they have communicated to the JNU administration of how the HLEC has violated the principles of natural justice in the enquiry process and that their concerns were not even addressed.
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday reserved its order on JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya’s bail pleas in a sedition case for 18 March which were opposed by the police on the ground that allegations were grave as they were the main organisers of the campus event.
The duo, who are lodged in jail since 23 February, has sought bail on the ground of parity with JNU student’s union President Kanhaiya Kumar, saying he has already been granted bail and the incident did not attract charges of sedition.
Additional sessions judge Reetesh Singh heard the arguments in which both the accused said they should be given the relief like Kanhaiya since they are in judicial custody and the police do not need their custody for the probe.
This was opposed by the investigators who said the students’ intention was to create hatred against the established government which attracts the sedition charge. The police said the case against Kanhaiya “is very much different” from that of Umar and Anirban as the JNUSU President was not the organiser of the event and there are 10 independent witnesses including security guards, JNU staff and the students who have confirmed that “anti-Indian slogans were raised” at the programme.
“The slogans attempted to incite the mob. These two persons, Umar and Anirban, led the crowd which shouted anti-Indian slogans. The police has also recovered two cellphones which established that anti-Indian slogans were raised by Umar and Anirban during the event,” the prosecution said, adding that posters used for the event were recovered from the emails of two accused which shows that they were the main organisers of the event which took place even after permission was withdrawn by the JNU administration.
However, the counsel for both the accused said, in this case there was no violence prior or later to the incident.
Advocate Trideep Pais, who represented Anirban, said there are a number of reports and even the police is saying that several videos on the incident which are in public domain are doctored and “even the report of JNU on the incident says that the slogans were raised by outsiders”.
Pais said that event organised by both the accused cannot be termed as unlawful assembly, even though the permission to hold that meeting was cancelled as no violence took place.
“My clients are already in the custody since 23 February after they voluntarily surrendered, including seven days’ police custody. They were absent for few days before surrendering because there was serious threat to life,” the counsel said.
He also said that their absence is resulting in ex-parte orders passed by the committees set-up by JNU in this matter.
Identical arguments were made by Umar’s counsel Jawahar Rana.
While seeking bail on the ground of parity, the counsel said, “Their co-accused Kanhaiya Kumar has already been granted bail and there were similar allegations against him as well. This case is not different from Kanhaiya’s. Besides these three, seven persons were also named in the case but they are also free.”
Advocate Yashpal, caught on camera attacking JNU students and media persons in the Patiala House Court Complex on 15 and 17 February, was also present in the proceedings, which took place amid high security.
The advocates, related to the case, were also taken out of the court in police escort.
The police had arrested Umar and Anirban for allegedly organising a controversial event at JNU on 9 February where anti-India slogans were alleged to have been raised.
Their judicial custody was yesterday extended by the court till 29 March.
The duo had returned to the JNU campus on 21 February after going missing since 12 February.
Delhi Police had issued a look-out notice on February 20 against Umar, Anirban and three other students — Rama Naga, Ashutosh Kumar and Anant Prakash.
Kanhaiya was earlier granted interim bail for six months by the Delhi High Court.
JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar, out on bail in a sedition case, on Tuesday led a march of students and launched a blistering attack on HRD Minister Smriti Irani, demanding her resignation for “targeting” academic institutions.”She calls us her children, but has she ever spoken to my mother or Rohith Vemula’s mother. I refused to be called her child. We demand that she resign for the way academic institutions are being attacked,” Kanhaiya said addressing the protestors at near Jantar Mantar.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The JNU students were marching from Mandi House to Parliament demanding release of PhD scholars Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, currently in judicial custody on sedition charges. The protesters were stopped near Jantar Mantar by police.”Smriti Irani says she is the mother of school children. Okay Mata ji, did you call the mother of Rohith Vemula or my mother and say, ‘Your sons may have done something, but I am standing with you.'”With me, my mother has also been made a traitor. Rohith Vemula’s mother has also been made a traitor. You shed tears.Your cry is fake, your laughter is fake, your speech is false,” Kanhaiya said. The JNUSU president also demanded release of fellowships of JNU research scholars. “A minister said if you are a student then study. We want to study. You’re a minister, release our fellowships, give us jobs. None of us is interested in coming to Jantar Mantar or going to jail or committing suicide. You have driven us to suicide,” he said.He also attacked RSS and said the students are protesting against the outfit. “It is being said traitors are living in JNU. Modiji we are not traitors. We are fighting against RSS. (Wo kehte hain JNU mein deshdrohi rehte hain, hum kehna chahte hain Modiji hum deshdrohi nahi, RSS ke khilaf droh kar rahe hain”.Four attempts were made by different persons during the speech to attack Kanhaiya which were foiled by students and police, which detained four people. The student leader also said he was not interested in joining politics and that he was a ‘man of movement’. “I won’t join any political party. I am a man of movement and I will continue to fight in movements,” he said.
The JNU authorities on Tuesday said a decision on what action should be taken against Kanhaiya Kumar and other students will depend on their replies to the show cause notices issued to them, a day after a high-level panel recommended their rustication over the controversial February 9 event.A high-level committee appointed by the university to probe the event organised to protest the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru and JKLF leader Maqbool Bhat, besides other related issues had yesterday recommended expulsion of JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya, PhD scholars Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, and two others. Based on the findings of the panel, the varsity has issued show cause notices to 21 students including Kanhaiya, who is out on bail, as well as Umar and Anirban, currently in judicial custody on sedition charges.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>When asked about the recommendation by the committee to expel him and four other students, Kanhaiya said, “I did receive a show cause notice but there was nothing about rustication in it.” The students who have been served the show cause notices said they will hold a meeting tonight to decide whether to respond to them or not. ABVP leader Saurabh Sharma, who is joint secretary of JNUSU, has also been served a show cause notice. Sharma was alleged to have stopped some buses during the controversial event in violation of traffic rules. “What should I reply to? There are no charges mentioned. It just says I have been found guilty but for what,” said Anant, a former JNUSU Vice President. Meanwhile, a section of JNU Teachers Association (JNUTA) has asked the varsity administration to make the report of the probe committee public.”Not making the report public is the first indication of the enquiry not being transparent. Rather than letting people speculate, they should disclose the recommendations of the enquiry committee,” JNUTA General Secretary Bikramaditya Chaudhury said.
New Delhi: JNU students union president Kanhaiya Kumar will lead the movement demanding release of two other varsity students who are still in judicial custody in a sedition case.
“Though I have got bail in the case despite both the government and police trying their best to delay it as far as they can but our fight is not over yet. Umar and Anirban are yet to be released. I will now lead the ongoing student movement,” Kanhaiya said.
Kanhaiya was released from Tihar Jail last week after the Delhi High Court granted him bail.
“Though our primary focus is to get them released but one thing I am sure of is if I adopt this ideology of raising our voice these trips to prison will become a frequent thing,” he added.
Jawaharlal Nehru University is caught in a row over an event on the campus to commemorate the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, where “anti-national” slogans were allegedly raised.
While Kanhaiya spent 18 days in jail, two other students — Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya are also in judicial custody in a sedition case over the event.
The JNU Students Union led by Kanhaiya has called a council meeting on Monday to discuss the “onslaught on JNU” and finalise their future course of action.
In Kanhaiya’s absence, JNUSU Vice President Shehla Rashid Shora had led the student agitation.
The JNUSU president was arrested in connection with the February 9 event. Five other students — Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya, Rama Naga, Anant Prakash and Ashutosh Kumar — had gone in hiding since then but resurfaced on the campus 10 days later.
While Umar and Anirban surrendered before the police, the remaining three refused to do so but maintained that they are open to questioning by police as and when needed.
Things did not go too well for JNU students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar. On Thursday, Kanhaiya, who is facing sedition charges, was attacked on JNU campus by a youth believed to be an outsider. According to students and teachers present there, the attacker called the JNUSU leader for an interaction when he was attending the “nationalism” lecture at the university’s administration block.
“Kanhaiya went to a corner to talk to him where the boy started abusing him and following the argument he slapped him. Seeing this, many students and university’s security guards rushed to rescue him,” a student said.
University’s security got into action and took the accused to the nearest police station where he has been detained for questioning, a police official said, adding his identity is yet to be verified.
Meanwhile, reports surfaced that Kanhaiya was fined Rs 3,000 in October 2015 for misbehaving with a girl student of JNU. The incident had occurred on June 10, 2015, when the girl student asked Kanhaiya, who at the time was not the students’ union president, to not urinate in the open inside the campus.
The girl, who now teaches at Delhi University, alleged that Kanhaiya “misbehaved” with her when she objected and also called her a “psychopath” while threatening her with dire consequences.
Kamlesh Parmeshwari Kamlesh, infact, in a post of Facebook on 3 March wrote an open letter to Kanhaiya, whom she referred to as ‘Upholder of Women Dignity’. She wrote:
“I am eligible to write this letter because I have an ugly encounter with this newly found Che Guevara of JNU and therefore I know his real face which I should definitely expose. I had my first and may be last encounter with this moron known as Kanahiya (the president of JNUSU) in June last year when he was urinating on road in JNU campus. When I objected, instead of saying sorry he not only shouted at me but also threatened me of dire consequence and suggested that I should take psychiatrist help.”
Following a complaint by her, the JNU administration held a proctorial inquiry that found Kanhaiya guilty.
“The university… has found Kanhaiya Kumar guilty of misbehaving with an ex-student (female) and threatening her.
“This act is serious in nature and unbecoming of a student of JNU and calls for a strict disciplinary action against him (Kanhaiya)… keeping his career prospects in mind, the Vice Chancellor has taken a lenient view in the matter,” said the office order issued on 16 October, 2015 by the then Chief Proctor, Krishna Kumar.
“Kanhaiya is fined Rs 3,000 and also warned to be careful and not get involved in any such incidents in future. Otherwise, strict disciplinary action will be taken against him,” the order said.
While an unsigned order was shared on social media by the girl, who accused Kanhaiya of being a “false revolutionary making claims about upholding the dignity of women”, the university administration confirmed in a statement that the letter was authentic and action was taken against the student leader.
“I am dejected and pained to see how my JNU community has ganged up to create false revolutionary. I want to ask, do you really understand the D for Dignity of a female, Mr Kanhaiya?
“Unzipping your private part in public and urinating on road— are these your revolutionary tools to uphold a female’s dignity? I am shocked to see how a misogynist like Kanhaiya is being hailed as revolutionary,” she said in an open letter that is circulating online.
Kanhaiya faces sedition charges in connection with an event on campus against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.
He was granted interim bail for six months by the Delhi High Court last week after spending 18 days in jail.
Meanwhile, All India Students Federation (AISF), the outfit to which Kanhaiya belongs, said in a statement “talk about public urination and threatening are being spread to malign Kanhaiya’s image. He had a verbal argument with the girl following which she had registered a complaint.
“We do respect the girl’s right to criticise Kanhaiya but we want to reiterate that he has always stood for gender justice. Also, when the incident took place, he was not the president of the students’ union,” it added.
Here’s the letter which ordered the fine on the students’ union leader.
With inputs from agencies
Kanhaiya, how has he disappointed his well-wishers! When he was arrested on sedition charges a few weeks ago, many felt sorry for him. The overwhelming opinion was that here’s a young man who was being harassed needlessly for expressing his views. None of these appeared anti-national or seditious. The police were using a sledge-hammer blow for something they could have managed with a needle prick. Of course, politics was quick to kick in and he became the central point of a national debate. After holding out for a couple days he was taken into police custody.
The debate and the sense of outrage consumed the country all through his 22 days in jail, leaving many on opposite sides of the big Left-Right ideological divide. He figured prominently in the ‘nationalism’ debate in Parliament. On his release, he delivered a speech that touched hearts, and minds too. He was appreciated for his candour and clarity of thought. He was duly applauded for being sincere and courageous. Why, he was even compared with Arvind Kejriwal. A week after his release, the goodwill is dissipating fast. It appears he talks too much, does not realise where to draw the line and as someone who is getting carried away by all the attention he is getting.
A week can be a long time to change perceptions. Back then everyone was prepared to indulge him, ignore anything unpalatable he uttered. He, after all, was a student. Students carry certain innocence about them. They are still unexposed to the harsh realities of the world, thus uncorrupted in their thoughts. They are idealistic and some idealism is always good for one’s moral health. In Kanhaiya people saw a bit of their youthful days. Even when he transgressed limits, he was allowed the benefit of the doubt. He was not considered so much a political person, just a young man who is impressionable. Of course, JNU was applauded for keeping alive its tradition of settling issues through debates.
Not so any more. A week on, he has made public his views on several matters. He has spoken about human rights violations, against AFSPA and about security personnel raping women in Kashmir. He was part of the crowd that heckled Professor Makarand Paranjape when he was speaking on nationalism on the JNU campus. We, the outsiders, cannot decide what Kanhaiya speaks but we certainly have the right to feel let down when he goes overboard with his statements. He no more appears innocent. His identity takes a clear political contour and he becomes no different than the routine political animal which we secretly dislike so much.
The military, as an institution, should be kept out of frivolous everyday discourse, political or otherwise. All civilised nations do that. It has a defined role to play and too much of its involvement in civilian matters dilutes its exclusivity and erodes the public respect for it. The Right-wingers, obsessed with the muscular approach to the world, have been doing this for sometime now through excessive idolisation, which is a worrying sign in itself.
A section of the Left has gone to the other end by almost disparaging it through excessive criticism. The defence forces command respect among Indian masses because they are a neutral force, beyond the nastiness of the civilian world. Once it is not seen as one, it should ring alarm bells for the democracy. Kanhaiya by making statements on the army looks irresponsible. Perhaps he is parroting someone’s line or perhaps he is not intelligent enough to understand the implication of what he is talking. It was fine so long as he spoke about farmers, the disprivileged and their unfairness treatment, but in case of the army he has overreached.
He should stop now and go back to studies. It’s good time since he is still has some goodwill left, but it does not take long to shrink in public esteem.
The Supreme Court today said it would on Thursday hear a plea seeking an SIT probe into the incidents at Patiala House courts in which three lawyers were allegedly caught on camera “bragging and boasting” they had beaten up JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and others, including journalists.The matter will be heard by a bench of justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre which will also hear the first petition filed after the arrest of Kanhaiya in which action was sought against Delhi police for its alleged inaction in the court complex where students and scribes were beaten by people in black robes. The bench on Wednesday agreed to hear the plea of advocate R P Luthra that the apex court should follow the Code of Criminal Procedure and should not give an impression that judicial hierarchy is being bypassed.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>It, however, rejected another plea, filed by advocate M L Sharma alleging that a fraud has been played on the court by the petitioner advocate in the instant matter. The court, on February 26, had sought response from the Centre and Delhi Police on the plea filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal seeking an SIT probe and initiation of contempt action against the lawyers for allegedly beating Kanhaiya and others in the district courts complex.The plea has sought “suo motu contempt proceeding” against lawyers Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma on the ground that they have allegedly been caught on camera talking about the attacks. It also sought a direction to set up a special investigation team to probe the incidents of violent attacks on journalists, students, teachers, defence lawyers and Kanhaiya on February 15 and 17 by some advocates in the premises of Patiala House courts here during the hearing of the sedition case involving the JNUSU leader.The plea alleged that the three lawyers interfered in the “administration of justice” and willfully violated the orders passed by the apex court on February 17. The petition, which also makes Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police as parties, said facts have come to light that there was “blatant violation of the rule of law” in the trial court premises.
CPI does not have any affiliated organisations and the outfits like AISF are independent but “friendly” towards the party, CPI General Secretary S Sudhakar Reddy said on Monday. ICC World Twenty20 2016: Afghanistan vs Scotland, Group B 2nd T20 Match Live Cricket Scores & Ball by Ball commentaryHis remarks came in the context of the row involving JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar who belongs to AISF (All India Students Federation). “We want to make it clear, we don’t have any affiliated organisations. There is a difference between affiliated and those who are friendly with us. We don’t have students’ wing, youth wing or trade union wing and all that,” Reddy told reporters.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”All those in students’ federation are not our party members. Kanhaiya Kumar definitely belongs to our party family…,” he said. AISF was inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru in a meeting presided by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1936, Reddy said.Former Prime Minister and BJP veteran Atal Bihari Vajpayee was also a member of AISF once upon a time, Reddy said, adding that it could have happened because AISF was the only students’ association those days.”…The general students in AISF may take their own political line. We don’t nominate AISF presidents or secretaries. We have no right to remove them because we don’t nominate them. Parties nominate in other unions. Our party members work in women’s, students, trade unions, so they are friendly to us. They are independent organisations, supported by Left and supported by general democratic sections of the society,” Reddy said.Asked if Kanhaiya Kumar would campaign for Left in the coming polls in five states, the CPI General Secretary said it was not discussed, but the JNUSU president may campaign as he did in Bihar election.