Ban is no campus cure

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati has banned students union elections in the state. Is this a shrewd strike against the BSP8217;s political rivals? Or does it open up space to reflect on the relevance of student politics in UP and the country? Has actually existing student politics invited this extreme step?

Just who is interested in elections to students unions in colleges and universities? Clearly the candidates and their backers, financial and political, take this business seriously. Why else, after all, would they spend lakhs 8212; some reports hint at much larger amounts. Possibly they believe that they are buying into future leaders of the Indian Republic and also helping them gain initial experience in managing the crucial ingredients that go into the making of successful politicians 8212; the ability to garner unaccounted money, learn about caste, religion and ethnic identities that ostensibly govern collective behaviour, instrumental deployment of violence, symbolic actions designed to grab media attention, and, not the least, a crucial accoutrement of power, a willful disregard for rules and procedures. Does this sound overly cynical, another rant against politics?

Well, reports of most student elections 8212; the candidates, the electioneering process, the issues raised 8212; hardly inspire confidence about the exercise. In campus after campus, student elections seem to have become captive to a bunch of political entrepreneurs who, on the surface at least, seem to have little interest in matters academic, the health of the institution, or even the students. Is it surprising that voter turnouts in student elections have been steadily declining, often dipping as low as ten per cent as in the case of the recently concluded elections to the Delhi University Students Unions?

Yet, we are continuously reminded how so many of our current leaders, including some of the best and brightest, launched their careers in student politics. Just think of Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury or Arun Jaitley, not to forget the redoubtable Lalu Yadav. Op-ed articles remind us of the 8216;quality8217; debates on the JNU campus, the pride of place often going to the stand-off between Prakash Karat and Jairus Banaji on, hold your breath, the relative merits of Stalin and Trotsky in the making and unmaking of the Russian revolution. We are also reminded of the glorious role of student organisations in the anti-Emergency struggles or even around foreign policy issues, be it the Vietnam War in the sixties or the Indo-US nuclear deal now. The overall refrain is that any attempt to curb the democratic freedoms and expression of students, be it through new conditionalities proposed by the Lyngdoh Committee or the more drastic action such as the complete ban of students union elections in UP by the Mayawati government, is regressive and needs to be opposed.

It is, however, difficult to deny that these actions have not generated widespread unease or protest. Many, in fact, have welcomed the reprieve from what are widely believed to be meaningless, expensive and violence-prone exercises. Years back, as an impressionable 17 year old, my first experience of democracy in the elections to the students union at Rajasthan University was hardly exemplary. Drawn in ostensibly to help woo the minority of English medium students as also women voters 8212; seen as more amenable to appeals from 8216;good8217; students of an 8216;impeccable8217; background 8212; I was quickly exposed to the harsh realities of ethnic vote banks, use of money and liquor, selective violence, extortion of money from city traders, and the list can be expanded. No discussion of any academic issues diluted the real-politik. And all this in a small campus of merely 12,000 students. Even more disturbing was the fallout. Disappointed rival factions engineered the first Jat-Rajput clash on the campus, even claiming one life. Many believe that this was a precursor of things to come as the once highly regarded university slipped into a morass of mediocrity, known more for the lumpens who lorded over the campus than any meaningful academic exchange.

Nevertheless, bans on democratic processes can at best provide temporary reprieve and extending them only pushes crucial issues concerning students, both as students and as citizens, underground. As crucial stakeholders in the academic enterprise, students need to be taken on board on a variety of issues 8212; both academic and managerial 8212; course content, entry and evaluation procedures, infrastructure and facilities, and pricing. Unfortunately, since few students unions ever bother to present their viewpoints, except as negotiating demands for additional facilities and for further diluting standards, and seem less concerned about their role in the knowledge production system, and are reluctant to evolve self-governing and regulating guidelines, the initiative to intervene invariably falls on the university administration or worse, the government. And here, the operating principle is 8216;discipline8217;.

Even more disturbing is the presumption that students unions are the primary culprits 8212; not teachers, administration or policy-makers. Not only do we have no research on students unions after the 1970s, we are also woefully ignorant about the expectations of students in different educational environments. In a period where the higher education system in the country is undergoing a major transformation, including a shift from public to private provision and the entry of foreign educational providers, treating students and their organisations as adversaries and not bringing them on board appears extremely short-sighted. Knee-jerk reactions like the ban announced by the Mayawati government, and that too for non-academic reasons like undercutting the support base of rival parties, may well compound the problems of a troubled campus rather than work as a cure.

The writer is consulting editor, 8216;Seminar8217;