Sunday, July 30, 2017

JNU, Professors and the word “militarization”


Now-a-day the most favorite, if not critical, term used by the JNU’s professors-cum-intellectuals is “militarization.” Over repeating and needless emphasizing on it prove its importance for them. Apparently, the talk of JNU’s street is questioning: are the professor’s right or wrong? Let's unlock the enigma whether JNU ever promotes “militarization” or not.

Apart from the walls, one often sees the picture of Che Guevara on the t-shirt of students living on campus. Here, two options are possible, either JNU believes in the militarization of Guevara or considered he was peaceful. It is a waste to find a professor who could prove Guevara as peaceful revolutionary, thus, statement one is right. This university, if I am not wrong, at least has two student wing party bears the name of Bhagat Singh in one way or other, who again do believe in “militarization.” The youth icon Subhas Chandra Bose too celebrated “militarization.” Both these legendary heroes are quite regularly acknowledged by the JNUites, especially under the banner of Left political parties. Apart from the pictures and student parties, “militarized” poster of many events can easily be located on the walls of various schools, hostels, and even the library. If professors, including the students, did not worry about these posters, t-shirts, and celebration by student wing then why this word “military” enters in JNU campus after the announcement of the tank. Were they sleeping at that time? Where were they then?

The above description is applicable only to the left parties as they openly suspect, and rightly too, that Right wing favors “militarization.” Their fear is genuine as the modern Right wing such as Savarkar, like the Leftist icons, promote the same. Meanwhile, saying that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Guevara too sponsor militarization are peaceful would be an antithesis. Now, it’s difficult to observe whose use of word “militarized” is correct, if compared between Left and Right?  I think both are wrong.

Thus, “militarization” was, directly or indirectly, part of JNU culture. My weak and feeble mind suggests me the meaning of militarization as an attempt to get a victory against the powerful. In politics, it is directed against the authority. If one succeeds, then he is revolutionary and if failed anti-national (left is both and right is neither in the JNU). The primary trust behind the overuse of word military, indeed, is to get power in their hands by hook or crook, force or foil, morality or immorality. But, the power cannot be achieved only by a direct fighting. Hence, both wings, Right as well as Left, needed a middle person that is JNU’s student, the common scapegoat.

Whoever be the winner of the battle between the professors (Left) and the VC (Right), but the students of JNU (scapegoat) are a loser and will remain the same. Today, all the professors’ are showing as they are the messiah of peace and pretend to be pro-students by their active participation in protests and hunger strikes, a Gandhian method. Let’s assume this statement is right and leave it for the students to decide.

After the unexpected and controversial event of Feb 9, the entire political lobby demanded that the students must remain away from the politics. But, they forget to talk about the professor, why they are excluded? I question, are they privileged? Lets leave it this matter too as everyone has their right to register their resistance, if it is according to the Indian Constitution. It is, if I am not wrong, also applicable to the professors, so does to me.

Till now, everything written here is about some hundred students and teachers who are part of a political group in a general and party in particular, left or right does not matter. Both are, undoubtedly, loyal to one another—it reminds about Aristotlean Master-Slave relationship model. But, what these teachers are offering to their students who spend their whole day in the library. This number is about 1000 pure researchers on whose name JNU gets best ranking. The professor shows their reliability towards the political students, and hence the researchers are neglected. Remember, it is the blood, sweat, and handwork of those thousand students on whose name these politically active students and politically inspired professors ripe their career. Ask those library-effected-students how much they are happy with this politically inspired atmosphere. Are not they feeling marginalized as their teachers are busy in politics? How much time do these students get? How fruitful is their research after spending nearly half of their day in the library, Monday to Monday, every day without rest? Holi, Diwali, Eid does not matter. Official holiday, no problem, we will read at room is  their thought.

The concept of 9B is a crime against Ph.D. who already spend his/her youth in JNU. Whose fault is this, who will take accountability? It happened only in JNU. An IITian finishes his/her Ph.D. in three years, but five summers are needed in JNU. Well done, responsible professors. Simultaneously, the students get a fellowship for three years, but they finish Ph.Ds in five years. Two years totally wasted, who will fund them? The fight should be for solving these student related issues for which the student wing demands votes. 

I forget to mention, if some decision, which the professors considered wrong, is taken by the VC then they say, it is not written in the Constitution. So the VC should work accordingly. Is the same rules are followed by the professors, in particular for a Ph.D. synopsis? As per the rule, every student has to submit their Ph.D. synopsis within six months after their M.Phil Viva. If it is a rule, is there any data to show how many students presented their synopsis within this timeline. Whose mistake is this? Let’s assume: it is student’s mistake because “authority” is always right—the idea is derived from the Philosopher King of Plato’s The Republic. 

Dear professors, just take a survey of those students inside the library with the question, “Are you happy with me?” If they say “Yes,” then you are free to go in the streets politics, but if the response is negative then you are “accountable” to students and not politics. The researchers don’t care whether or not there will be a tank, what they need is your attention. As a footnote, there are un-numbered pictures of Gandhi, in all courts, police-stations, offices, but are these able to insert morals in the people working under the shadow of this legend’s picture. If the answer is wrong, then nothing is going to change in JNU after tank—no one can promote his/her political idea with a symbol, neither left (red), nor right (saffron) not third lobby of Ambedkarite (Blue). 

Returning to the title, the “militarization” is always a part of JNU, and we do it sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. The celebration of revolutionaries, whatever name one has, is the promotion of militarization. Wearing their T-shirt and posting their poster and distributing their pamphlet is also militarization. Do you forget even Karl Marx too believe in militarization by proffering “dictatorship of proletariat”—it was impossible without blood? Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Guevara, Singh, Bose, Savarkar are its another face but at a different time, place and land. If we are teaching our students these names and their achievements, then we are promoting “militarization” but in light shade. If so, then, why we are opposing the hard militarization that is proposed by the VC in the name of a tank. As I told earlier, it is happening only to gain power in the hands of powerful by using students as the cog in their wheels—both left and right are part of it.

Militarization is always bad, whether it is a light form of students and professors or in dark form of authority, the Platonic King is my meaning. Its unfortunate effect forced the Indian Socialists to erase the word “blood” from their manifesto of 1957—suggested by Stalin during his visit to India in 1953. The case of Savarkar too was no different. 

What I get from this transition is:
Propaganda follows the mixing of politics with media. Similarly, the secret wedding of politics, media, and army leads towards censorship. By writing this, I too become the target of “censorship” (I cannot name the unnameable). 

Do I have the honor to break the silence of “Censor? ” please let me know.

No comments:

Post a Comment