First of all, one needs to understand that despite claims of being a place where egalitarian values are promoted, JNU has always remained as a site of contest between contradictory caste and class interests. At each level of achieving measures of positive discrimination for the socially, economically and regionally marginalized, the progressive forces within the campus have been met with stiff resistance. The above-mentioned contradictions get concealed more often than not, especially when struggles get conducted on the basis of broader unities. So, the question of reservations will have to be deliberately highlighted at times, exposing the tall claims of university being a perfectly egalitarian place before the explicit attacks from the Sangh Parivar started. The demand for fair implementation of reservations have been even stigmatized to a considerable extent, as influential individuals and groups associated with JNU have openly stood with the argument that reservations will subvert merit. Due to this stigmatization, or the portrayal of those who advocate for reservations as enemies of merit, there has been more chance of pro-reservation discourse being silenced or side-lined. This also makes it imperative to give an extra-attention to the issue.

Now, let us come to the context of the presently ongoing agitation. It need to be noted that there is a growing criticism within the student community that the issue of non-implementation of reservation is not getting the attention it deserves and gets sidelined among the other issues. This growing apprehension among the students who belong to marginalized backgrounds has strong roots in the past experiences in JNU. A strong anti-reservation lobby has always remained as a stumbling block in the smooth and fair implementation of reservations in the university. It is important to mention that many of the brand ambassadors of this lobby does not belong to the Right. Some of them claim themselves to be Liberal, Left-liberal, Nehruvian and even Marxist! A fear of reservations badly effecting merit and thus lowering the quality of knowledge-production in the university has been cunningly produced, maintained and perpetuated by the above-said lobby. Thus, anyone who is serious about ensuring fair implementation of reservations in JNU, will naturally be convinced of the need to wage a two-pronged struggle. One the one-hand a struggle against attempts of the RSS to stop reservations is necessary, and on the other a cautious struggle against savarna Left-liberals in JNU, who have a history of going to any extent to stop implementation of reservations is also necessary.

Why is RSS against reservations? First of all, RSS does not acknowledge caste as an evil that exists in Hindu society. So, naturally they don’t agree that remedial measures such as reservations is needed to mitigate it. They consider caste as a divine social division and remedial measures such as reservations as ‘anti-Hindu’. According to them, it divides Hindus, which they claims to be a homogeneous community. Hence, repeated open demands have come from the top brass of RSS from time to time to review the present system of reservations and to make economic backwardness the sole criteria for reservation. They are also against other safeguards provided to the socially marginalized, as it is evident from the help rendered by the NDA government to dilute the SC/ST POA Act. And, why a section of savarna Left-liberal academicians are against reservations? To put it simple, caste-blind liberal sensibilities and myths about academic spaces being run by merit only, becomes handy for these savarna Left-liberals who would like to preserve their privileges.

As we have already seen why it is important to give extra-attention to the issue of reservations, let us now come to the question how it can be done? First of all, there is a need to re-assert the importance of doing politics on the basis of social cleavages and to reject the liberal gospels about unconditional unity against the communal authoritarian government in the centre. The argument that the central dichotomy of our times is that between less liberal, more authoritarian governments and more liberal, less authoritarian governments, and that we should keep aside ‘sectarian’ articulations of different deprived living conditions is gaining currency. This would have a fatal impact on the struggle against anti-reservation politics in JNU as the anti-reservation lobby have enough adherents in the pro-JNU, anti-Sangh camp also. This means that the leadership of JNUTA and JNUSU should be more vigilant to clearly discard such a political articulation and to emphasis that unity against the communal authoritarian government cannot come at the cost of subverting mechanisms of positive discrimination. Secondly, there is an urgent need to link the struggle for reservations inside the campus to the struggles happening outside. The country is witnessing strong movements against the atrocious acts being committed by both government machinery and the Sangh machinery against the Dalits. Dalit-OBC groups, along with other progressive forces, shall be mobilized and asked to collectively intervene on the issue of non-implementation of reservations in JNU. In other words, they should me made to confront the JNU administration with the question how can the university made of tax-payers’ money be turned into a space where only the children of the elite get access to. And thirdly, there is a need to creatively engage with the strong resentment from at least a section of students regarding the normalization of non-implementation of reservations and the collective failure to challenge that normalcy in the most militant way. For example, there is a growing demand to completely stall the admission procedure and to convey the message that admissions without reservations shall not take place. While the pros and cons of such an approach is to be debated, a non-engagement with such a demand won’t be good. To sum up, there is an urgent need to address the anger of the socially marginalized and to deliberately give an additional care to the issue of reservations, which unfortunately is yet to happen. Let us look with hope upon the leadership of JNUSU and JNUTA to do it at the earliest.

Since the beginning of the winter semester, 2018, the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Vice Chancellor, Jagadesh Kumar imposed an illegal and unilateral decision to implement the policy of compulsory attendance for students. The overwhelming majority of students and teachers in JNU rejected this policy and abstained from signing registers and teachers resisting intimidation and coercion from administration. This article is trying to point out the problems and effects of the implementation of compulsory attendance in Jawaharlal Nehru University. In the first part, the consequences of the implementation of compulsory attendance on students is elaborated, which contains two sections; one, the B.A & M.A students and second, Research Scholars. In the second part, the different and conflicting opinions existing among the teachers, apart from opposing/supporting binary on the issue of compulsory attendance, is traced.

Regimenting and Routinizing the Students: The End of Responsible Freedom and Voluntarism

The victims of the present decision can be broadly divided into two- the first is the BA&MA students who are asked to ensure their physical presence in their classes and the second is the research scholars who are asked to come to their respective centre’s/schools and sign in a sheet of paper without any purpose. To the first section, the present decision has raised a question on their free choice to decide which classes are to be attended and which classes can be skipped. It wrongly presupposes that involuntary physical presence of a student in the classroom ensures better academic achievements. In a university atmosphere like that of JNU, skipping a class need not necessarily mean that the student is wasting his time on some unproductive activity. B.A & M.A students use the wider exposure that they get in a space like JNU by attending conferences, seminars, public meetings, discussions etc, conducted by different centre’s, students’ organizations, discussion groups etc. For that, sometimes they may skip some classes if they think that won’t affect their overall academic achievement of that semester badly. There is no situation of students completely keeping themselves away from the requirements of courses they attend, as already there are mechanisms to ensure their participation. The skipping of certain classes is to be seen as a conscious decision that a student makes, where he thinks he can do better things than merely ensuring his physical presence in a classroom.

Along with this, the policy that the JNU administration is trying to force upon students is also based upon the assumption that the onus of falling attendance, if any, is to be squarely placed on the learner. It overlooks the role of teacher, the importance of a rich and attractive syllabus, the relevance of innovative classroom activities etc in attracting the students. The whole system, especially the course instructor, is supposed to make such an atmosphere which will attract the students to the classroom and make them attend lectures; participate in classroom discussions and other activities. This fact is completely overlooked and it is assumed that everything is perfect with the system and you need to just force the learner to be physically present for the lectures. This is a very superficial understanding of the learning process and the attempt is to destroy a better system, where JNU teachers sometimes have classes with students flowing in from other centres or even from outside JNU thanks to their intellectual attractiveness, with a system of coercion, mechanical style of delivering lectures and involuntary attendance by the students. It is interesting and relevant to note that the voluntary attendance system that had been working well in JNU for decades had been acting itself as a system of feedback for the course instructor and for the centre which offers the courses. The teachers could improve themselves by taking the turnout they could ensure in their classes, as a scale for their own performances.

Again, a case of falling attendance, if any, is also linked with the larger socio-economic cultural milieu to which the student belongs to. Discrimination based on social identities, economic deprivation, exclusive nature of the academic spaces etc can lead to failure of learners in adjusting with the system. The Sangh-appointed policymakers of JNU are not only blind, but also antagonistic towards any discourse that brings these conditions to light. The Abdul Nafey Committee report which suggested reduction of weightage of viva-voce was rejected, 100% viva was introduced in entrance exam, deprivation points and constitutionally guaranteed reservation system have been sabotaged, GSCASH was dismantled, no step for timely revision of fellowship amounts and it’s time-bound disbursal is being considered. The university atmosphere is becoming more and more hostile to the socially marginalized and economically deprived students. The cultural regimentation of Hindutva also criminalizes their self-assertions. Thus, at a time when important questions regarding making university spaces more inclusive is being deliberated, all such questions are being set aside and further pressure is being put on the students in the form of compulsory attendance. Thus the attendance system that is being forced upon JNU student community now is an additional blow on the students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. Genuine socio-economic-cultural reasons for their possible disharmony with the present educational system will never be addressed and they will be criminalized and thrown out with the help of the new draconian provision.

Now let us come to the case of the second section- the research scholars. Research comprises of a variety of activities such as visiting libraries and archives, attending conferences, doing fieldwork, conducting interviews etc. This needs greater freedom to use one’s time according to one’s priorities and even to travel freely. There is a supervisor to guide the researcher, faculty committees to evaluate the work from time to time and also mechanisms to ensure that the work is completed in reasonable time limit. Thus a greater amount of freedom is not only desirable, but also inevitable for researchers, the present decision to force them to come to the centre office and sign everyday without any purpose, envisage research in the most bizarre manner. It is further ordered that the researchers will have to take prior permission from the ‘competent authority’, if they have to travel as part of their research. Who is the competent authority is yet to be defined, but what is clear that the research scholars will have to go through a rigorous bureaucratic procedure which will have counterproductive impact on their research. It also creates the problem of development of multiple power-centres upon the research scholar. For example, if the scholar would like to conduct a field work for his research, even after getting approval from his supervisor, the actual conduct of the field work will also be dependent upon the permission provided by ‘the competent authority’. Paper presentations, field works and other academic engagements that go against the vested interests of those in power can be kept in constant surveillance and can be stopped when they want to stop it.

The Dominant and Alternative Pedagogy: Teachers and Compulsory Attendance

The debate on the implementation of compulsory attendance system in JNU visibly created a binary rift between the teachers, the supporting and the opposing groups. Apart from this support/oppose binary, when we analyse this little more closely we can see more nuanced stances existing among the teachers. Below, an attempt has been made to trace the layers of opinions existing among different sections of teachers with respect to the implementation of compulsory attendance system.

The first section of teachers clearly opposes it due to the conviction that this unilateral imposition will never enhance learning, rather it will produce a counter-productive bureaucratization and regimentisation of education which will lead to climate of intimidation and fear. They believe that voluntarism is the only guarantee for excellence in education and that can be achieved only through accepting the idea of responsible freedom. They believe that learning is a two way process that challenges both student and teacher, forcing them to continuously update their knowledge as the process of learning and unlearning goes hand in glove. This section also believes that classroom is a site of experiment, of creativity and new thinking where ideas and concepts are born and debated. This section will be academically strong, believes in a healthy cooperative teacher-student relationship, and thinks that the use of power destroys ideas and creates unproductive classrooms. This section believes that compulsory attendance is a farce which creates suspicion and surveillance.

The second section of teachers clearly accept compulsory attendance as a positive step to enhance learning, as they think that it as a tool to discipline the students, and believe that routinisation and compulsory presence in the classes will fetch more marks. This section is the representative of the dominant pedagogy and style of education followed in our schools, colleges and universities. They are merely, implicitly reflecting/reproducing the dominant social conditioned norms in the society. This section also enjoys power and dominance over the students, which they think will automatically produce respect for him/her among the students.

The third section is related with first and second section but a different category. They will be academically strong and will be adamant about attendance as they believe that it would help the students, as to them the loss of one class will ruin the continuity of lectures. They believe in noting down the presence and absence of students in the class and make it a point by telling the student in the next class not to leave the lectures. They are at times hardworking, academically efficient, genuine, student centric teachers. Hence they are concerned when a student misses the class. But they are also implicitly reproducing the norms and values of the society and justify it by saying that after all some form of attendance will benefit the students.

The fourth section of teachers are the ones whose classes will remain empty if the students get the option to take the course voluntarily. They may be from the right wing, who are weak in academics and quality education. They implicitly enjoy the ‘respect’ which is obtained from the students through the act of intimidation and often creating fear among the students. They are also carrying the behaviors of second category, are adamant in teaching the students discipline, never entertain counter-questioning of the teachers, believe in the values and norms of society which kills the creativity and responsibility among the students. The JNU VC himself is a classic example of the fourth section of teachers with his recent handpicked appointments in various centers. In sum total this section of teachers are ideologically right wing, most often academically poor, and whose lectures are filled with mere rhetoric and lack content. JNU VC is adamant about increasing this category of teachers, by twisting and bypassing all conventions and norms existing in JNU, preparing every possible ground to kill the alternative education style and method of pedagogy practiced and developed by first section of teachers.

The fifth section of teachers are neither academically strong nor ideologically oriented, they are simply irresponsible. They are not bothered about whether students are learning or not, nor have an opinion on whether to implement or not to implement compulsory attendance. They will probably say no to attendance due to the bureaucratic work that they have to undertake, not because they are ideologically opposed to that system. This section is a curse to students and academics. They can easily become prey for the right wing tendencies and overtime they can become like the fourth section of teachers.

Though binary is a product of the present fascist climate in which it is essential to keep differences and it needs to be channelized through us vs. them categories. The binary produced is undoubtedly between the first section of teachers and other sections combined; the supporting and opposing groups. There is no doubt that JNU stands clearly for that first section of teachers, who undoubtedly stands for counter hegemonic structure of education and pedagogy, who continuously challenges each other, argues and updates their knowledge, learns and unlearns knowledge through cooperation and healthy interaction, and minimizes the elements of suspicion and surveillance. To be short, it is a battle of two pedagogic visions- one which sees individual freedom and liberty to make choices as integral for a healthy academic atmosphere, and the second which envisage maximum restraints and the curtailment of individual freedom as the means to make students ‘work more’.

The present decision to implement compulsory attendance in JNU can be understood completely, only if it’s less obvious pedagogical dimensions are seen along with the more obvious political dimensions. It marks a retrograde shift in the pedagogical approach that governs the university administration. The pedagogical understanding of university administrators are important in ensuring quality of education, as the structures, norms and practices that they construct as facilitators, seriously affect the overall framework in which the students acquire knowledge or engage themselves in knowledge-production. The present decision was taken without any comprehensive study on the need for amendment in the attendance policy hitherto existed, the possible merits and demerits of the policy and the opinion of various stake-holders of the university. Unfortunately, on the helm of the affairs, we don’t have a well-thinking educationalist, but a RSS-trained, dictator VC who is obsessed with his dreams of regimentation and intimidation. This has made an informed debate impossible and the ongoing almost unanimous mass disobedience from the students inevitable. But as the impact of the decision will have long-lasting impact on the way in which universities are run in this country, there is an urgent need to link the present struggle with larger questions of pedagogy.

Sarath Sasikumar, is a PhD candidate in the Centre for Political Studies, JNU

Georgekutty M V, is a PhD candidate in the Centre for Comparative Politics & Political Theory, JNU.

It seems that the decision of the Central Committee has made a large section of Left-liberal intelligentsia upset. It is understandable that the elite Left-liberal lot may be suffering from a melancholy of the Congress rule under which they could enjoy privileges of all sort and could posit themselves as a segment of the society that is engaged in a struggle against the bourgeois-landlord state. The relevant question is whether a Communist Party should tail the line of such Left-liberals and satisfy them by forging an opportunistic alliance with the Congress, or shall it concentrate on building up struggles against exploitation by the ruling classes and their political formations including the Congress. As the Congress has not yet made any public confession regarding it’s pro-corporate, anti-people policies during it’s regime, on what basis shall the CPI(M) dilute it’s critique of the Congress policies and join hands with them? How can the Party expand itself by mobilizing more people from the deprived sections of the Indian society, who are direct or indirect victims of the neo-liberal policies persuaded by the Congress, if it end up as an electoral partner of the Congress? These are some important questions that the elite Left-liberal critiques of the ‘Karat line’ refuse to answer clearly.

The only point on which the elite Left-liberal critiques of the central committee decision give emphasis is the need for a broader unity of anti-BJP forces to bring down the present communal authoritarian government led by Narendra Modi. While the point is valid, what they refuse to critically reflect upon is the credentials of Congress in building up resistance against such communal-authoritarian policies of the Modi government, and it’s potentials to do so in the future. For example, attempts to impose a nation-wide beef ban and political protection to the cow vigilante groups and the atrocities committed by them has been one of the most visible forms of attacks on the secular fabric of the country. It need to be thought whether it is possible for a party like Congress, which has always relied upon moderate-Hindutva, to take on BJP on such an issue? This is just one among the many examples that can be given for the inherent weaknesses of the Congress in building up resistance amidst the onward march of Hindutva.

Unfortunately, a section among the rank and file of the CPI(M) also cherishes false hopes about Congress and is eager to make electoral benefits out of a grand alliance led by it. This is problematic in more than one way. First of all it shows the obsession with electoral considerations and reluctance to build up a vibrant Left movement through extra-parliamentary struggles. Secondly, it takes class analysis as less important and gets into the liberal trap of focusing on the dichotomy between a less authoritarian, more liberal regime and a more authoritarian, illiberal regime. Thirdly, it completely sets aside the long-cherished aspiration of CPI(M) to take initiative to form a third (non-Congress,non-BJP) alternative in the national level.

The above-mentioned scenario also clearly suggests that a social-democratic faction with liberal-parliamentary illusions exists inside CPI(M), whatever may be their actual strength. It can be read as a side-effect of the CPI(M) strategy to use the space provided by bourgeois liberal democracy in India to build up the working class movement and finally transcend the bourgeois liberal democratic order itself. It is natural that when the party is involved in parliamentary democracy and gets perks of the system, some inside the party start feeling comfortable with the system, and forget the larger social reality and the need to transform it. It will be great if the current decision taken by the Central Committee act as a starting point to have an effective rectification campaign within the party so that liberal-parliamentary illusions can be busted, organization can be rejuvenated with a renewed revolutionary spirit and enforce those with social-democratic allegiance to participate in a project of dedicated organization-building and rigorous ideological interactions with the masses. To be short, it’s high time that the party declares it loud and clear that a Communist Party cannot afford parliamentary opportunism and promotion of liberal fantasies.

Having said so, I think a write up on the present inner-party debate in CPI(M) will be incomplete without shedding some light on possible alternatives to the present modalities which leave space for social-democratic fantasies. First of all, the prime priority for the party shall be to strengthen the struggles of workers and peasants and any other engagement including the use of liberal democratic institutions shall be subordinated to it. The Communist movement has not yet made any satisfactory appraisal of the situation in the trade union sector. The near-to-total hegemony that once the communists enjoyed in the organized labour movement in India is no more there and the reality that it’s the BMS that has occupied their space now shall make the self-proclaimed vanguard of the Indian working class hang their head in shame. When the aspiration to re-capture the lost space is lacking even in the case of working people in the organized sector, it’s better not to talk about the situation in the unorganized sector. Even in the Communist bastion of Kerala, the spontaneous protests of the most exploited working sections like nurses, textile shop workers etc are taking place outside the framework of the organized Left. Such absences shall be taken care of. The urban poor in most of the Indian cities are totally unconnected with the Communist movement and there shall be attempts to raise their demands on a day-to-day basis. The attempts being made by the party to take the caste question more seriously shall be strengthened and the identity-based social upheavals of the marginalized shall be made more effective with the active presence of the party machinery in them. These are some suggestions that one who observes Left politics in India can easily offer, but the list can be really too long. But it can also be summarized in a simple call to ‘go to the basics’ and liberate oneself from the illusions created by the status-quoist forces.