Appa Rao Poddile, the Vice Chancellor, who was sent on leave in the wake of students’ agitation that broke out over the suicide of a Dalit scholar, Rohith Vemula, joined back the University. Appa Rao’s prejudiced actions against the Dalit scholars were exposed to the world during the flare up over Rohith’s death. He, along with Bandaru Dattatreya, and Smriti Irani are clearly responsible for his institutional murder. Hyderabad Police had accordingly booked him along with the union Minister Bandaru Dattatreya, N Sushil Kumar, the HCU Unit of the ABVP and one Vishnu for abetment of suicide and also for violations of the SC/ST Atrocities Act. The cases under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act were filed in Gachibowli police station under Cyberabad police commissionerate limits. In its characteristic obstinacy the HRD Ministry sent him back to take charge of the university.  

While the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) were protesting with sit-in in front of the VC’s lodge some elements indulged in stone throwing and causing damage to it in order to provide an alibi for the police to crack down. This has been the pet strategy of the Hindutva camp as the JNU slogan shouting and subsequent crack down on the innocent students revealed. The authorities should investigate and identify the culprit instead of charging the ASA students (and even faculty) for these acts without any proof.     

Appa Rao had a history of anti-Dalit actions in the university. Rohith had written him a note insinuating how casteist environment in the university was alienating Dalit students. Any Vice Chancellor worth his salt would have been alarmed and counseled with him. However, Appa Rao has been so callous and incompetent that he never bothered to comprehend the consequences of his abominable punishment to the five Dalit scholars. It was an apt case for summary dismissal for the HRD Ministry but the latter chose to persist with such characters that carry out its saffron agenda. For the Hyderabad Police, there was a prima facie case to arrest Appa Rao, instead they cracked down on the students and faculty who protested against his reinstatement.        

CPDR demands
·         Release all students and faculty unconditionally.
·         Withdraw cases against them.
·         Investigate who indulged in vandalism and book them for the crime
·         Remove Appa Rao from the post of Vice Chancellor
·         Bring a person with proven competence to restore the academic climate of the University.
 
Dr Anand Teltumbde, General Secretary, Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR), Maharashtra
 
 

The post CPDR Condemns the Brutal Police Attack on the Dalit Students and Faculty at Hyderabad Central University appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Full text of the statement by the Jawaharal Nehru University faculty

In a shockingly partisan statement that blatantly misrepresents events, the Bar Council of India has issued a report that justifies the well documented attacks by a mob of lawyers on Jawaharlal Nehru University students, teachers and media at Patiala House Courts over two days (February 15 and 17, 2016) as “a reaction to the incidents, which are grave in nature and very dangerous for the country”.

The Bar Council of India Joint Secretary Ashok Kumar Pandey claimed that a large number of JNU teachers and students and others had arrived at the court in three to four buses and raised slogans and used “provocative words”. This led to the untoward incident in which “both the sides took part,” said the report, adding that “any true citizen or a lawyer of India” was supposed to react strongly to the “anti-India” slogans.

We, the undersigned faculty members of Jawaharlal Nehru University, wish to set the record straight. Nine of us reached Patiala House Court No 4 between 1 and 1.15 pm on 15th February 2016 to attend the hearing on Kanhaiya Kumar’s bail plea. The sole objective of our presence there was that when Kanhaiya Kumar was produced he would see the faces of his teachers in the courtroom. At that time, a few students and other teachers of JNU, and some members of CPI, the parent organisation of Kanhaiya’s student group, were already waiting silently outside, similarly wanting him to see friendly and familiar faces when he was produced. There were about 15 to 20 of them, hardly enough to fill four cars, let alone one bus.

Initially, we (signatories to this letter) waited on the benches outside the courtroom, along with a few journalists. After the lunch break the court clerk and stenographer invited us to come into the courtroom and we were seated there even when a few lawyers, an under-trial and a policemen, etc walked in and out of the room. We were not asked by anybody at that point to leave. About fifteen minutes later, about ten to twelve men dressed in lawyer’s clothes rushed in, shouting at us to get out. These lawyers were led by a man whom we later recognised from the media coverage the next day as Mr Vikram Singh Chauhan. At that time we did not know who any of them were. They crowded the small room and abused us, saying that JNU teachers were anti-national and “deshdrohis”, that we were all “Pakistanis” and asking us ‘what kind of antinational education do you give your students’?

We tried to reason with them not to be abusive, and said that we had a right to be in the courtroom, but they continued to heckle us as “Pakistanis”, and told us that the seats were for lawyers alone. The police kept on just watching and did not intervene to stop them. Some of us even got up and told them that they could take our chairs and we would just stand, but they started physically trying to push us out of the courtroom. Our younger male colleague, Dr Rohit, who was standing at the back, was grabbed by his collar and dragged towards the centre of the courtroom. Chauhan said “maar do isko” and began raining blows on Rohit. Women faculty close to him tried to stop him physically, but the lawyers continued hurling abuses, and some of us were pushed and jostled and touched inappropriately in the process. The attempt was clearly to intimidate and harass us into leaving the courtroom, and indeed Patiala Court premises. The police and court staff kept on watching and did not intervene to stop them.

Profs Neera Kongari, Rohit, Himanshu and Janaki Nair were pushed outside the courtroom. Most of the men dressed in lawyers’ clothes rushed out after them. Extremely abusive language was used by the lawyers.

Those of us who remained inside could hear sounds of men shouting from outside, and fearing that we would be subject to even greater physical violence, five women faculty – Profs. Ayesha Kidwai, Madhu Sahni, Nivedita Menon, Susan Viswanathan, and Chitra Harshvardhan – once again sat down. A larger contingent of policemen entered the courtroom and asked us to vacate the courtroom. Some of the aggressive lawyers came back in and although we requested the police to hold them back, they did not even ask these lawyers to leave. Instead they were allowed to enter and leave the courtroom as they wished. We asked the police to bring us orders from the magistrate asking us to clear the courtroom and demanded to be escorted out of the building. We were told that the magistrate had given verbal orders to the police to clear the courtroom, but we insisted that we be given police protection throughout. When a contingent of policewomen arrived, it took the police 10 minutes to find a way to escort us out of the courtroom as the doorways and the courtyard was blocked by shouting lawyers. The police were forced to find another exit and led us to another ground floor exit but that was blocked too by shouting and screaming lawyers. We were led then up the stairs and at least two other stairwells were tried but we were led away as the police was unsure that they could get us out safely.

Other lawyers who passed us on the corridor kept up the threatening tone, saying we should all be sent to Pakistan. Finally, a safe exit into the ground floor shed where the notary publics sit, was found. The police escorted us to the gate and bundled five of us into autorickshaws as they feared that we would be assaulted even if were to walk to our cars parked in the parking lot.

JNU faculty who had been pushed outside the courtroom were completely silent, and they noted that the lawyers led by Chauhan, when finally obstructed by the police, sent in two women lawyers who also shouted abuse at the JNU faculty assembled in the courtroom. A few minutes later all the lawyers rushed out of the courtroom saying “nikal gaye” and began beating up every young person assuming they were JNU students, including a very young couple.

Later media coverage confirmed that students and the media people, as well as a CPI member, were assaulted by the mob outside.

Kanhaiya Kumar was not produced in court on that day, and when he was produced on the 17th, only one JNU faculty member was present, Prof Himanshu; in fact we were asked by Kanhaiya’s lawyers to stay away so that our presence would not create the opportunity for further violence. It was on that day, when no faculty was present, and only the same handful of JNU students and CPI activists, that Kanhaiya was physically assaulted and the media terrorised and beaten up for the second time by the same lawyers in full view of a passive police force.

So the claim of provocative slogans from “3 to 4 busloads” of JNU people rousing lawyers to physical assault is patently false.

The Bar Council report surprisingly fails to mention two crucial bits of evidence:

1. The WhatsApp message in Hindi that was circulated over February 14-15, that clearly mobilised for the attack. The message, snapshots of which are freely available in the media, calls upon all recipients to assemble in large numbers at Patiala House on Monday 15th to “peacefully and legally” “produce befitting consequences” (anjaam tak pahunchana) for the traitors who have been conspiring in Ganga Dhaba (JNU) and,
2. The sting operation by India Today that reveals Vikram Singh Chauhan and others boasting about their violent assaults on Kanhiaya and others.

From the transcript of the deposition of Kanhaiya Kumar to the Supreme Court judges’ panel after the attack on him the second day, made public on February 27th by CNN-IBN, it is also clear that the registrar general of the high court had been present at the time, and had asked Jatin Narwal, DCP, New Delhi, “to catch the guy” whom Kanhaiya identified as his attacker, but he failed to do so. When the DCP claims at one point that he was not in the room when Kanhaiya was attacked, the registrar again intervenes, saying “No sir, he was inside the room along with 10-12 officers.” (Transcript available in The Indian Express of February 28, 2016).

It is shocking that the Bar Council of India should produce such a patently false account of events that exactly matches the claims of Vikram Singh Chauhan and BJP MLA OP Sharma who led the violent mob. Even more appalling is the fact that a body that represents practising lawyers should justify physical violence on the grounds that anti-India slogans were raised, which is any case, a blatant lie.

Is the legal community now going to subvert due process and rule of law and take matters into their own hands whenever they feel their sentiments are hurt? This is particularly paradoxical given Vikram Singh Chauhan’s recent interview to The Hindu (February 27, 2016) in which he says the media has “already found him guilty”, for it seems BCI not only justifies Kanhaiya’s being “found guilty” by self-proclaimed nationalist lawyers, even before he is produced in court, but also their attack on him on the basis of their perception.

Chitra Harshvardhan
Himanshu
Ayesha Kidwai
Neera Kongari
Nivedita Menon
Janaki Nair
Rohit
Madhu Sahni
Susan Visvanathan

Photo Credit: VictorVibhu/Twitter

The post JNU teachers slam Bar Council report that justifies the Patiala House attack appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is a spot upon the earth
Where people stand firm and true
On behalf of those the Fat Cat shuns—
It’s called JNU.
 
The Fat Cat marshals violent hordes,
Enforcement winks assent;
The truth—it sneaks from subterfuge.
The mask of tyranny is rent.
 
The Fat Cat does not questions like.
He pushes them under the flag;
The camouflage does not suffice
To lock people in the bag.
 
Coming days will surely tell
The fake from the noble passion—
Do flags and heroes or little people
Make up the real nation.
———————————-

Blasphemy or Sedition

We are a continent of choice,
You are free to choose either one—
Speak freely of god or man,
And pick blasphemy or sedition.
 
Be not your hate of our kind
But deriving from atrocity,
You invite either sedition
Or embrace blasphemy.
 
Our hates are nationalist—
Yours dangerously just;
Should you insist to disagree,
Well, l we destroy you must.
 
God is that we think is god,
And State is what suits us best;
Refusing either postulate—
The police will have to do the rest.
 
 

The post Blaphemy or sedition: Poems for our times appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is something ominously new in the manner in which the attack against freedom of thought and expression has been launched this time, says the noted political scientist

Full text of the statement titled by the noted professor of political science to his colleagues and students at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Kolkata

This is not the first time that freedom of thought and expression has been attacked in the Indian university. But there is something ominously new in the manner in which the attack has been launched this time.

We know that the sedition charge was applied across the board by British colonial rulers against anyone who expressed anti-colonial or nationalist views. Writers, artists, poets, and thousands of students and teachers were arrested for sedition alongside political leaders and agitators. But the British colonial officers, who were themselves among the best students of British universities who sat in a fiercely competitive examination to enter the highest paid civil service in the world, respected the British principle of the self-governing university. The unwritten rule that the police must not enter a university campus was observed in the early decades of independent India when I went to college. Student agitators engaged in a street fight with the police would often run for safety into the college campus, and the police would unfailingly stop at the college gates. The rule began to be violated from the 1970s. In regions of the country rocked by political agitation, the university campus was drawn into partisan conflicts between the government and the opposition. Students and teachers were arrested on charges of participating in violent agitations. Needless to say, in the North-eastern states or Kashmir, where state repression is long-standing and indiscriminate, the university campus was not spared.

Not since the Emergency

But I cannot remember, except for the period of the Emergency in 1975-77, a national campaign that asserts that certain political questions cannot even be talked about in the university. Are we to accept that national loyalty must be so unquestioned that the origins and present status of the nation and its boundaries, the nature of the constitution and the laws, the mutual relations between different regions and cultures, the demands of oppressed peoples and minority groups, cannot even be discussed and debated among students and teachers? One would have thought that such debates were the very essence of a democratic public life. And of all public places, the university campus is the most precious arena where freedom of thought and expression is the foundation of the vibrant intellectual life of a nation. Even in the United States, that paradise of market-controlled capitalism, university professors are protected by tenured appointments on the specific ground that they must not be exposed to victimisation for the content of what they teach or publish. This demand was recognised after the experience of the notorious McCarthy witch hunt against alleged communists in the 1950s.

What is happening in India today is similar to the McCarthy era. Whether the alleged “anti-national” slogans were raised on the campuses of Hyderabad University or JNU by those who have been charged is, of course, important for the future careers of those students – for Rohith Vemula the matter is, tragically, beyond rectification. But as far as the broader issues are concerned, that is beside the point.

What school of jurisprudence is it that claims that a sentence of capital punishment pronounced by the courts and the subsequent political decision to carry out the execution cannot be debated in a democratic public forum, especially in a university?

What is the constitutional theory that says that the existing boundaries of the nation-state or the structure of relations between the constituent units of the Indian Union are not open to question when only the other day the Indian government transferred dozens of hitherto Indian villages to neighbouring Bangladesh through a treaty and the number of constituent states of the Union and their federal relations are regularly changed by constitutional amendments?

Or is it the claim that while grave matters like these might be left to the mature decisions of politicians, impressionable students must not be exposed to such dangerous scepticism? Is the plan then to turn the university into some sort of patriotic seminary designed to produce brainwashed nationalist morons?

A blanket licence

While we may be forgiven for laughing about the farcical quality of the latest campaign, with such gems as the decision to fly national flags from 207-foot high steel poles on every Central university campus, it is actually spine-chilling in its implications. What has now been sanctioned by the highest political authorities of the country is a blanket licence to every Hindu right-wing vigilante group to target individuals belonging to the Left-Dalit-minority fraternity on university campuses. They can be identified as “anti-national” simply on the basis of their political convictions. Charges of sedition brought by the police would help, but it does not matter in the least if they do not hold up in court. The object is to smear and intimidate. The extreme example was set by the murder last year of MM Kalburgi. What we are seeing today in the attack on Kanhaiya Kumar and his friends in the Patiala House court or on Professor Vivek Kumar of JNU in Gwalior may only be the beginning of a long and bloody series.

A great deal is at stake. We must be strong, resilient and united.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post ‘What is happening in India today is similar to the McCarthy era’: Partha Chatterjee appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The notion that we are a different, informed society that would not let a Dreyfus affair in our watch should not deceive us

In 1894, a case of espionage broke out in France. Alfred Dreyfus, a young officer was arrested in connection with a letter suggesting a transfer of sensitive documents to the German attaché in Paris. Dreyfus was arrested for the crime, his family was intimidated and he was swiftly convicted despite weak evidence. After being publicly shamed as a traitor in a court-martial, he was sent to ‘Devil’s Island’ in French Guinea, a notorious penal colony. Within a couple of years of his conviction, a movement emerged to re-examine the facts of the case. Dreyfus would be eventually re-tried and re-convicted despite overwhelming evidence in his favour.

Dreyfus was Alsatian, Jewish, and a graduate of the elite École Polytechnique, one of the most competitive institutes in the country. Alsace had been lost by France following the Franco-Prussian war, the French were bitter about this, and Alsatians were often seen as a suspicious regional minority. The case that came to be known as the “Dreyfus Affair” in time became a landmark in modern French history because of the multilayered schisms in French society that it threw open.

Two more trials took place in interim between the two of Dreyfus himself – a judicial inquest of the officer, Ferdinand Esterhazy, suspected of doctoring evidence and framing Dreyfus, and a defamation case against Émile Zola, a writer who publicly supported Dreyfus in a landmark open letter to the president published in the socialist newspaper L’Aurore titled “j’accuse” (I accuse). In both cases, mobs of people followed the proceedings or waited outside courthouses. Esterhazy was found innocent to cheering supporters,[1] Zola on the other hand was publicly maligned for his seditious letter by invoking his foreign origins (his father was Italian). His trial ended with him receiving the maximum possible sentence for defamation.

There were multiple layers of victimhood and perpetration in the Dreyfus case. Clearly, the man himself was the prime victim, but those that stood with him were as well. The communities by extension – Jews, Alsatians, were targeted. Public figures, even people in the military, who believed in his innocence were attacked. The press at the time in France started as rabidly anti-Dreyfus, with few outlets willing to publish arguments counter to a mainstream discourse of Dreyfus’ guilt.[2]

The Dreyfus Affair has become a textbook study on organized prejudice in the name of nationalism. Its roots or outcomes are too broad (and disagreed upon) for a serious discussion here. But what matters here is the way it contributed to the mobilization of the French intelligentsia on one hand, and a construction of the “anti-national” in the imagination of the public.

The Dreyfus Affair has become a textbook study on organized prejudice in the name of nationalism. Its roots or outcomes are too broad (and disagreed upon) for a serious discussion here. But what matters here is the way it contributed to the mobilization of the French intelligentsia on one hand, and a construction of the “anti-national” in the imagination of the public. L’Aurore published a note called the “Manifesto of the Intellectuals”,[3] something of a modern day “Sign this Petition” which called for a revision of the verdict. The note, an early modern case of mobilizing the intelligentsia, spurred a radical reaction from opponents.

It split French society into Dreyfusards and anti-Drefusards, depending on one’s position on the guilt of Dreyfus. Mobs of people agitated against the any change in the original verdict, not just in the capital but in small towns all over France, despite the specifics of the case never being entirely clear. The media frenzy was led by ideologically driven news sources, including one of the key players – La Libre Parole, which was published by an organization known as the anti-Semitic League. For Dreyfusards, speaking up in his favour meant accusing the state. They could be tried under criminal jurisdiction (since it was technically hurtful to the taxpayer), whereas the verbal and media attacks on them by public figures and the media alike were administered by the weaker civil adversarial system.

While many students and thinkers did stand with Dreyfus, the overall Dreyfusard identity[4] was by no means restricted to just a small educated elite – many citizens from across various walks of life stood against the conviction and treatment of Dreyfus. Nonetheless, dubbing it intellectual helped to other it as an elite movement. Besides physical attacks and intimidation, the very term ‘intellectual’ was condemned and equated with excessive cerebrality, vanity, and effeminacy. [5] The notion of intellectuals interfering in matters of the law and nation were attacked as being out of place.[6]

Although Dreyfus was re-convicted, he was offered a full pardon if he accepted he was guilty. He took the deal.

There aren’t necessarily perfect parallels between the Dreyfus case – but correspondences are probably running through your mind right now.

If you are on the JNU campus, you have already been labeled one way or another. If you had anything to do with the campus and your credentials are known, you could find that the scar of deviance can follow you home. If you had the momentary lapse of reason to give yourself the POTA court equivalent complimentary defence by showing up on TV shows like NewsHour, the chances are your kin are now finding guilt by association of something you didn’t exactly know you were on trial for. If you are a stand-up comic who has said anything, ever that someone found repulsive enough to make the news, you learnt your lesson well before. Kanhaiya Kumar learnt the hard way.

In these past days you have almost certainly seen an othering category used as a callout to a suspicious minority – Kashmiri, Communist, Muslim. You have seen this happen on mainstream media that you trust or trusted. You have seen doctored evidence, you have seen citizens and mainstream media invoke doctored evidence even after they know it has been doctored. You have seen citizens turn researchers with technical investigations into the national cost of subsidizing college for dissenters. You have perhaps witnessed gentle forms of street justice carried out by citizen-judges.

You have probably also seen this played out on social media. You have found your acquaintances divided by what they choose to share and comment on. You have probably seen threads of conversations with two, or perhaps more sides talking back and forth with no changes in position. You have probably unfriended or unfollowed people, or had those done to you. You been enthralled by or dismayed with a video, article, or social media rant that an acquaintance has forwarded you, and in turn been surprised by where they stand on a certain issue, positively or otherwise.

If you’ve got into the comments section of any conversation, the chances are you’ve either called someone an anti-national, been called one, or at least seen someone else be called one. You may even have wondered if you are one. You may reminisce back to the days when being called a traitor meant something. You had to work to earn it, like Madan Puri wearing a Mao outfit in a den with beeping lights.

There is something refreshing about a vilification from the ‘apolitical’ – those that claim they do not get involved in politics, except when the nation is insulted. Then they cannot bear it. It claims legitimacy in presenting itself as Shiva’s third eye, powerful by the rarity of its invocation. If you thought you were an intellectual or knew one, you may have enjoyed the pleasure of being called a communist pinko. If you wrote a blog post, maybe you got nailed for being a presstitute. If you liked or retweeted the wrong link, perhaps someone even labeled you an intellectual, in their minds or to your face.

The attacks on the JNU students have hit home in personal ways that they did not in the past. ‘Intellectuals’ who have made their positions on the JNU issue public have been told to stay out of judicial matters,[7] and self-appointed speakers for the nation (film star Anupam Kher, for instance) have tweeted that to the opponents of the current movement as cockroaches who should be exterminated. Not only is the language disconcertingly reminiscent of Rwandan public media in the run up to the events of 1994, but that the message was among the most widely retweeted and favorited messages on Indian social media in 2016 should be sufficiently chilling.[8]

The mobilization of the apolitical has meant that outrage is no longer just the job of those who will willingly stand up to lathis, deal with FIRs, subject their dear ones to infamy, or sneak in a stone in the middle of an active mob. We may not get named as traitors on nationwide dailies, but perhaps a neighbor will desecrate our doorbells for signing the wrong petition. The spectacle of a new form of public execution, full with the delight of jeering on, is now ours at the click of a mouse.

It is exactly this that should remind us that our history is not far behind us. The notion that we are a different, informed society that would not let a Dreyfus affair in our watch should not deceive us. We have, if anything, far better weapons of both propaganda and self-deception at our behest. More importantly, we have the means to validate our ideas through our apolitical networks. The “La Libre Paroles” may be alive and well in today’s shouting media environment, but social media offers the ways to repeat stories, to track reputations, and to turn the number of ‘likes’ or ‘retweets’ into a metric of verity. Unlike the television that offers music videos or soaps as possibilities to switch channels to, the political in social media is braided into your very presence online. How many feeds can you block?

Our memory for spite remains the same a hundred years on. Dreyfus went back into the army. He fought again for the country where he was once the most hated man. He won medals for valour. But being confirmed a traitor comes with some permanence. The teeth you lose in dark solitary confinement don’t come back.

[1] Another officer, Hubert-Joseph Henry was found to be the one who doctored the evidence against Dreyfus. After his arrest, Henry committed suicide in jail. Supporters gathered together to pool together resources for his family, the cash donations frequently accompanied anti-Semitic letters from citizens

[2] While members of the Catholic clergy were openly complicit with the anti-Dreyfus movement, even the socialists, in this period, were considerably anti-Semitic, with the image of the Jewish capitalist frequently invoked as an opponent to worker rights.

[3] Georges Clemenceau, a politician and future wrote the ‘Manifesto of Intellectuals’ at the time, which came to be

[4] Indeed there are several types of Dreyfusards depending on what stage one started supporting Dreyfus’ cause, and whether the support was for Dreyfus per se or the broader anti-Semitism.

[5] This builds on Guy de Maupassant’s characterization of the intellectual, as referenced in Charle, C. (1998). Naissance des” intellectuels”: 1880-1900. Éds. de Minuit.

[6] Drake, D. (2005). The Dreyfus Affair and the Birth of the ‘Intellectuals’. In French intellectuals and politics from the Dreyfus affair to the occupation (pp. 8-34). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

[7] A note from the Overseas Friends of BJP to specific academics who voiced support for JNU students was posted on Facebook stating “You would be attempting to intervene in the judicial proceeding in India by putting political pressure on the Indian government. It would be seen as a misuse of the clout and respect bestowed to you by your profession and Institute to destabilize democratic and constitutional processes of a foreign government”

[8] Exact text from the tweet by @AnupamPKher on February 20, 2016: घरों में पेस्ट कंट्रोल होता है तो कॉक्रोच, कीड़े मकोड़े इत्यादि बाहर निकलते है। घर साफ़ होता है।वैसे ही आजकल देश का पेस्ट कंट्रोल चल रहा है।

Courtesy: Kafila

The post Vilification from the apolitical: The Dreyfus Affair and the case against JNU: Joyojeet Pal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Maintains there is no credible evidence of seditious activities in the academic institution

Renowned thinker and academician Noam Chomsky has questioned the way administration at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) handled the recent controversy on campus

In an e-mail to Vice-Chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar, Mr. Chomsky has questioned the decision to allow police on the campus. “Many of us remain very concerned about the crisis in JNU, which was apparently created and precipitated by the government and university administration with no credible evidence of any seditious activities on campus. Why did you allow the police on campus when it is clear that this was not legally required?” the e-mail sent on Sunday read.

Students and teachers at JNU have also been protesting the alleged mishandling of the issue by the university administration and questioned the decision to allow the police on campus.

The administration, in its defence, has maintained that “the university was bound to do so”, even as protesting students and teachers contended that the matter was one of indiscipline and not sedition.

“I never invited the police to enter the campus and pick up our students. We only provided whatever cooperation was needed as per the law of the land. We only asked police to do whatever deemed fit,” the V-C had earlier said.

The university has also set-up a high-level committee to probe the issue. On the basis of the committee’s preliminary report, Kanhaiya Kumar and seven other students have been suspended. A final report is expected to be ready by February 25.

Mr. Chomsky, along with Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and 86 other academicians, has condemned “the culture of authoritarian menace that the present government in India has generated” and said that those in power are replicating the dark times of the oppressive colonial period and the Emergency.

The JNU Students’ Union president was arrested on February 12 after being charged with sedition and criminal conspiracy.

Courtesy: The Hindu

The post Chomsky to JNU V-C: why did you allow police on campus? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We are consolidating the statements received in the past few days in the following post. The institutions/groups are as follows in order of date received, starting from February 24, 2016: 
 

Johns Hopkins Stands With JNU

Duke University Stands With JNU

1. Teachers at Delhi University

2. Professional Staff Congress, the City University of New York faculty and staff union (PSC-CUNY)

3. Pinjra Tod, Delhi.

4. Academics, Students, Writers, Academics and Activists from Australia.

5. U.S Community Organisations.

6. Students and Faculty at Johns Hopkins University, U.S.

7. Academicians in Gujarat

8. Students at Cornell University, U.S.

9. South Asian Communities at Tufts and Harvard Universities, U.S

10. Students, Faculty and Other Workers at Duke University, U.S.

11. Mumbai students.

Please click on “read more” for the statements and signatories:
 

1. Delhi University Teachers in Solidarity with JNU: 

We, the undersigned teachers of Delhi University, extend our solidarity with the students and teachers of Jawaharlal Nehru University. We unequivocally condemn the police action on campus following the events of February 9, 2016, the lodging of an FIR and the arbitrary arrest of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar on grounds of sedition, and the subsequent attack on him and other citizens within the precincts of the Patiala House courts in the presence of large numbers of police personnel. JNU has had a long tradition of nurturing a culture of politically engaged debate. We believe that the attack on JNU is a part of a larger campaign by the state to undermine the autonomy of university campuses as spaces where all kinds of ideas and opinions, no matter how sensitive, provocative and potentially controversial, can be freely aired, critiqued and openly discussed without fear of reprisal. It is essential for institutions of higher education to foster critical thinking that engages with social and political issues. We have seen similar attacks in other spaces – our own campus and in places like the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) where we witnessed the tragic death of the scholar and activist, Rohith Vemula. The assault on JNU, coming as it does in the wake of the cutbacks in public funding for higher education, is a clear indication that the state is intent on instrumentalising patriotic sentiments for purposes of imposing an anti-constitutional, homogenized, exclusivist nationalism. In this particularly worrying manner, it seeks to stifle all dissent on campuses and in society at large, while moving simultaneously towards dismantling and destroying meaningful public education in India,. Further, the law on sedition, a colonial era provision in the Indian Penal Code, has no place in a modern democracy. The increasing harassment and persecution by the police, of Kashmiri students, their families, and others, including teachers from Delhi University who have been branded as ‘anti national’, is unconscionable and unconstitutional. In this context, the irresponsible behaviour of some sections of the media that have incited violence with the circulation of misinformation and doctored videos is reprehensible.. We demand the release of Kanhaiya Kumar and the dropping of all charges against the students of JNU, especially the malicious and unfounded targeting of another student, Umar Khalid. As teachers and academics we ask that the autonomy of universities be nurtured so that they remain democratic spaces where debate and disagreement are upheld and respected as a critical, integral part of academic life. Signatories: 1. Mukul Mangalik, Ramjas College. 2. Prabhu Mohapatra, Department of History. 3. Anubhuti Maurya, Bharati College 4. Sunalini Kumar, LSR 5. Aparna Balachandran, Department of History 6. Shahana Bhattacharya, Kirorimal College 7. Satyajit Singh Professor Dept of Political Science 8. Rajni Palriwal, Department of Sociology 9. Ira Singh, Miranda House 10. Ratna Raman Associate Professor Sri Venkateswara College 11. Nayana Dasgupta, Lady Shri Ram College, university of Delhi 12. Saswati Sengupta, Miranda House 13. Vibha Maurya, Professor at Delhi University 14. Farhat Hasan, Department of History 15. Upinder Singh, Professor of History, University of Delhi 16. D. Manjit, Dyal Singh College 17. Debjani Sengupta, IP College 18. Nandini Sundar, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University 19. Ruchira Das, Institute of Home Economics, University of Delhi 20. Ankita Pandey, I.P. College 21. Naveen Gaur, Dyal Singh College (University of Delhi) 22. Suvritta Khatri, Deshbandhu College 23. Nalini Nayak, Assoc. Prof., (Retd), PGDAV (M) College 24. Parul Pandya Dhar, Department of History, University of Delhi 25. Rakesh Ranjan, SRCC, Delhi University 26. Sudha Vasan, DU 27. David Vumlallian Zou, Delhi Univeristy 28. Anita Cherian 29. Anirudh Deshpande, Department of History 30. Rekha Basu, Department of Philosophy, Hindu College 31. Manisha Choudhary, Department of History 32. Benston John, Department of Economics, St Stephen’s College 33. Shashi Saxena, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College 34. Chitra Joshi, I.P. College 35. Bilasini Naorem, Miranda House 36. Sanghamitra Misra, Department of History, University of Delhi 37. Apoorvanand, Department of Hindi 38. Rimjhim Sharma, DU 39. Bodh Prakash, Zakir Husain Delhi College 40. Sunil Kumar, Professor of History, Delhi University 41. Kesavan Veluthat, Department of History 42. Roopa Dhawan, Associate Professor, English Department, Ramjas College 43. P K Yasser Arafath, Department of History, University of Delhi 44. Sanjay Kumar, St. Stephen’s College 45. Seema Alavi, Department of History 46. Naina Dayal St Stephen’s College 47. Anshu Malhotra, Department of History 48. Anushka singh, assistant professor, gargi college 49. Deepika Tandon, Associate Professor, Miranda House, DU 50. Ranjana Das, Ramjas College 51. Nidhi Gulati, dept of El education, IHE 52. Sharmila Purkayastha. Miranda House 53. Tanya Roy, University of Delhi 54. Nandita Narain, St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University 55. R. Geeta, Department of Botany 56. Nandini Chandra Department of English 57. Saikat Ghosh, SGTB Khalsa College 58. Rashmi Pant, Indraprastha Collge for Women, Delhi University. 59. Amrapali Basumatary, Kirori Mal College 60. Saumya Gupta, JDMC 61. Hari Sen, Ramjas College 62. Charu Gupta, Department of History 63. Vikas Gupta, Department of History, Faculty of Social Sciences, Delhi University. 64. Ruchita Machal – Miranda House 65. Rachna Singh , Assistant Professor, Department of History, Hindu College 66. Radhika Chopra, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Delhi 67. Sunita Narain, Associate professor 68. P K.Yasser Arafath,Department of History,University of Delhi 69. Archana Dixit, Bharati College 70. Tapan Basu, Department of English 71. Maitri Baruah, Hansraj College 72. Abha Dev Habib 73. Mihir Pandey, Ramjas College, University of Delhi 74. Rahul Govind, Department of History 75. Aditya Deo 76. Vishwa Mohan Jha, Dept of History, ARSD College, University of Delhi, New Delhi 110021 77. N Sukumar, Department of Political Science 78. Bharathi Jaganathan, Miranda House 79. Pragati Mohapatra, I P College.

2. PSC-CUNY
PSC-CUNY stands in solidarity with the students, faculty and staff of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi, India, in their struggle against state repression of political speech. We condemn the arrest of JNU student union President, Kanhaiya Kumar, on charges of sedition and the expulsion of eight students by the university administration. The students are being persecuted by the Indian government and the university administration for participating in a rally protesting state policies and actions. It is a gross abuse of power for a democratic state to punish its citizens for exercising their right to political dissent. JNU is not a stand-alone incident; the recent attacks on students at other universities, like Jadavpur, and University of Hyderabad where it led to the tragic suicide of Dalit activist, Rohith Vemula, are part of a pattern of harassment and repression. We believe that the targeting of politically active youth at public universities reveals the broader program of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) to push its neoliberal attack on the poor, its discriminatory agenda against minorities, its promotion of a hawkish foreign policy, and its squelching of political dissent. We, at the City University of New York, and our fellow academics at universities throughout the USA appreciate the dangers of stifling academic freedom through our own destructive history. Our union is committed to fighting against class oppression, racism, and sexism, and to vigorously defend the right to political opposition. We join faculty and students from across the world – including University of Texas, Doctoral Students Council, CUNY, Purdue University, Williams College in the US, Canadian universities, University of Leuven, Belgium, University of Oxford, UK, Bangalore Research Network, Tata Institute of Social Sciences and University of Hyderabad in India – to express our solidarity with the students and faculty at JNU. We call upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to immediately cease the pattern of persecution at universities. We also call on the Vice Chancellor of JNU to drop all punitive measures against the students engaged in protests, and to demand the immediate release of Kanhaiya Kumar.

2. Pinjra Tod Campaign, New Delhi

An Adivasi school-teacher and human rights activist, Soni Sori was brutally attacked by a group of men last Sunday, her face blacked with grease. Soni now lies in a hospital in Delhi, her face mutilated and swollen, unable to open her eyes, but amazingly relentless and fearless about continuing her struggle against the atrocities perpetrated by the Indian state and mullti-national corporations against her people, the Adivasis of Bastar and Chattisgarh and their lands, rivers, forests and songs. In 2011, Soni had been arrested on charges of being a ‘Maoist’ by the Chattisgarh police and labelled an ‘anti-national’ under a host of fabricated cases. While in custody, Soni was subjected to brutal torture and assault. In a powerful letter addressed to the nation from jail, she had enquired in anger and desperation, “…by giving me current, by stripping me naked, or by brutally assaulting me – inserting stones in my rectum – will the problem of Naxalism end? Why so many atrocities on women? I want to know from all countrymen” The officer who led the torture on her, Ankit Garg, was awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry award.in 2012 for his ‘valour’, ‘courage’ and ‘self-sacrifice’ in service of the ‘nation’, in service of ‘Bharat mata’.

Soni Sori’s case is not an ‘exception’ or an ‘aberration’. Kawasi Hidme, an Adivasi from Bastar, once again charged as a ‘Naxal’, was repeatedly tortured and abused in custody, sent from one jail to another, after the policemen in a station had ‘satisfied’ themselves ‘enough’. This continued for seven years, as the ‘valiant’ actions of the protectors of the ‘nation’ led to Kawasi’s body ejecting her uterus one day. Bleeding profusely in unbearable pain, she pushed it back the first time and attempted to cut it off with a blade borrowed from another inmate the next time. Kawasi’s story came to light when Soni met her during her own time in jail. Hundreds of Sonis and Hidmes languish in prisons across the country. The women of Konan Poshpora, who were raped with impunity by soldiers of the Fourth Raj Rifles, the most senior rifle regiment of the Indian Army, more than 25 years back still await justice from the courts of law. The powerful protest of the Manipuri women who stripped naked defying the indefinite curfew imposed in Imphal, screaming “Indian Army rape us, kill us, take our flesh” after the rape and heinous murder of Thangjam Manorama, continues to disrupt our national pride from the ‘margins’ of this nation. The thousands of women who were raped during Partition, scream from the past, about the violence on women’s bodies that constitutes the very moment of inception of India as an ‘independent’ nation. This violence has been enacted over and over again in numerous moments across the history of this post-colonial nation, be it Emergency, the 1984 riots, the Godhra killings, the Gujarat riots, Operation Green Hunt, Kandhamal and Muzzafarnagar riots.

In a context of frenzy where everyone, from the right to the left, joins a race to assert who is the ‘true nationalist’ of them all, Soni’s blackened face, Manorama’s bullet-ridden dead body, Kawasi’s ejected uterus, begs us to ask the question: can the nation, any nation really ever belong to women? What is this nation built and held together (intergated?) by the rape and torture of women? Does the control, surveillance and violence on women’s lives, bodies and desires underlie the very core of what comes to constitute nationalism and the nation? Are masculine and patriarchal notions inherent to the imagination and construction of the nation? We have heard a lot about the contradiction that plays out when the sanghi brigade relentless threaten ‘mothers’ and ‘sisters’ with sexual abuse alongside exhaltations to ‘Bharat Mata’. However, a more crucial question that we need ask is: Why is India a mother, why is Bharat a Mata, why? Why this engendering of the nation? Does the imagery of the nation entrap women into pinjras where we are reduced to biological reproducers of its members (‘sons’); limited to ‘mothers’/’wives’/’sisters’ in need of protection; contained into cultural signifiers who are the markers and reproducers of cultural boundaries/differences; idolised into figures whose bravery is realised through self-sacrifice/erasure? In this gendered construction of the nation, the lives and experiences of Dalit, Adivasi and working class women are invisibilised, frowned upon and even, criminalised. As we critique the nationalist project of Hindutva, we need to interrogate if there can really be a truly inclusive nationalism or if the nation functions on creating an excluded ‘other’ vs-a-vis whom difference is established?

The violence of the nation on women does not lie only in so-called ‘exceptional’ incidents, it is enacted in the ‘everyday’, in the ‘mundane’, most often in our most initimate spaces and relations, in very insidious ways, beginning from our families and continuing to universities, workplaces and the society. The burden of the nation is a daily reality for every woman, manifesting in diverse forms in the numerous regulations and restrictions that bind and cage her, in the policing of her autonomy and freedom that she has to negotiate and resist, and even internalise, everyday. How many times have our families told us that we have been corrupted by ‘Western’ ideals when we have argued with them for our most basic rights, be it the right to venture out at night or the right to study/work as a woman or the right to love the one we desire (the list is endless)? When the Justice Verma Committee set up after the Jyoti Singh rape case had recommended criminalising marital rape, a parliamentary standing committee, headed by Venkaiah Naidu, dismissed the recommendation, claiming that if marital rape is brought under law, the very edifice of the great Indian family system will come crumbling down. Basically what this asserts is that marital rape is a necessity for the ‘Indian’ family and the institution of marriage to survive. We have all heard of the horror tales of shaming and humiliation from women who have approached the courts seeking justice against sexual violence, as they were tried and interrogated for not adhering to the ideal of what marks the ‘good’ Indian woman.

Haryana CM’s ex-OSD, Jwahar Yadav statement, “For the girls who are protesting in JNU, I only have one thing to say that prostitutes who sell their body are better than them because they atleast don’t sell their country”, leads us directly into the patriarchy and brahminism that lie at the very heart of nationalism, trapping us into binaries of the ‘good’ vs the ‘bad’ woman, of the ‘anti-national/Maoist’ vs nationalist woman, the respectable woman vs the women on the streets, the good student vs the ‘ungrateful daughter’. A woman who is a sex-worker whose labour disrupts the premises of Brahminical morality and family ‘values’, is to be shamed. An autonomous woman who thinks, who questions, who resists, who fights is a grave ‘national threat’ to this nation, especially so if you are an Adivasi or a Dalit or a Muslim or a working class woman who is speaking aloud. Such women defy the masculine and patriarchal script of nationalism produced by upper-caste men (dating back to the early nineteenth century!), that has been premised on silencing of women’s voices and experiences and entraping them in a swirl of pinjras of domesticity and alienation.
Your borders and boundaries will not stop the international solidarity and collectivisation of women, our imaginations dance wild like stardust, like the magic spells of witches.

4. Academics, Students, Writers, Academics and Activists from Australia.
As academics, students, writers, artists and activists from Australia, we condemn the use of oppressive power by the Indian state, its police, and Hindu fundamentalist groups to shut down voices of dissent emerging from within public universities in India. We join the international community in extending our support to the students, faculty and staff at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Hyderabad Central University (HCU) and many other public universities, who have been courageously protesting the overreach of state power and brutal stifling of dissent, carried out in the guise of majoritarian Hindu nationalism (Hindutva). Students at JNU and HCU have been targeted for opposing the death penalty awarded to Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon, convicted for “terrorism” by the Supreme Court of India. Students’ opposition to the death penalty – an act of violence carried out by the state to assert its sovereign might – has been manipulated by the state, university administrators, and irresponsible media reports, to be understood as their support for “terrorists”, and thus considered treasonous. The labelling of student activists as “anti-national” by invoking the draconian law on sedition (a legacy of British colonial rule), is a blatant attack on academic freedom. These attacks have been orchestrated by the BJP regime to strike fear among citizens who question its practices of anti-minority religious hate mongering and xenophobic propaganda. HCU student Rohith Vemula was suspended and driven to suicide because of the way the university administration and the state intimidated and threatened him. These attacks on students and free speech are not aberrations or sudden spurts of violence. Rather, they are part of a pattern of attacks on every idea and expression that does not pander to fascist Hindutva ideology. We deplore the attack on journalists, students, academics and activists by the lawyers at the Patiala House Court premises. The silence and inaction of the police in controlling this situation only testify to the state’s complicity in these events. We are appalled by the jingoistic and prejudiced reporting by some media channels to vilify JNU student activists Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid. We endorse the demands made by the protesting students, staff and faculty at JNU and HCU. We demand: a) the immediate release of the Kanhaiya Kumar, President of the JNU Student Union, and Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya; b) that the Bar Council of India enquiry into the attacks on journalists and protestors in Patiala House Court be carried out without political manipulation; c) that there should be no further intimidation and arrests of student activists for carrying out peaceful protests; d) the government must preserve the autonomy of universities and de-militarise campuses. We acknowledge that our solidarity is being extended from territory occupied by a settler colonial state. We also acknowledge that the Indigenous peoples who have not ceded their sovereignty, own this land. This acknowledgement is a necessary precondition for building transnational solidarity against governments – like those in India and Australia – that use democracy and national security as alibis for legitimising their everyday violence. Endorsed By: 1. Debolina Dutta, PhD Researcher and Lawyer, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne 2. Oishik Sircar, Teaching Fellow and Doctoral Researcher, Institute for International Law and the Humanities, Melbourne Law School 3. Samia Khatun, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of History, University of Melbourne 4. Shakira Hussein, Hon. Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne 5. Mridula Nath Chakraborty, Academic, Monash University 6. Irfan Ahmad, Associate Professor of Political Anthropology, ACU, Melbourne, Australia 7. Rajgopal Saikumar, PhD Candidate, The Australian National University 8. James Goodman, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney 9. Kama Maclean, Associate Professor, UNSW 10. Monique Hameed, Tutor, University of Melbourne 11. Jordy Silverstein, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Melbourne 12. Heather Goodall, Professor Emerita in History, University of Technology Sydney 13. Sukhmani Khorana, Lecturer, University of Wollongong 14. Dr Zeena Elton, Independent Researcher/Writer 15. Trish May, PhD student, UNSW 16. Maryam Alavi Nia, PhD Candidate, UNSW 17. Assa Doron, Academic , Australian National University 18. Meera Ashar, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), The Australian National University 19. Samanthi Gunawardana, Lecturer, Monash University 20. Josh Cullinan, Secretary, Australia Bangladesh Solidarity Network 21. Dr Lionel Bopage, Retired Public Servant, n/a 22. Neeti Aryal Khanal, PhD candidate, Monash University 23. Erin Watson-Lynn, Lecturer, Monash University 24. Roanna Gonsalves, Writer and academic, UNSW 25. Michelle de Kretser, Writer, University of Sydney 26. Dr Ruth De Souza, Stream Leader, Research, Policy and Evaluation, , Centre for Culture, Ethnicity and Health 27. Hannah Courtney, PhD Candidate, UNSW 28. Dr Danny Butt, Lecturer, Centre for Cultural Partnerships, Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne 29. John Zubrzycki, PhD Candidate, University of New South Wales 30. Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie University, Australia 31. Camilla Palmer, Postgraduate Researcher, University of New South Wales 32. Brenda Dobia, Senior Lecturer, Western Sydney University 33. Coel Kirkby, Postdoctoral Fellow, Melbourne Law School 34. Elizabeth King, Student, UNSW 35. Rajpaul Sandhu, Teaching, ACS 36. David Feith, Subject Coordinator, Humanities, Monash College 37. Wimal Jayakody, Member of PHRE 38. Steve Pereira , Community Engagement, Melbourne University 39. Anura, Real Estate Sales, PHRE 40. Sithy Marikar, Vice President – AGGSl, Australian Labor Party 41. S. R. Sivasubramaniam, Engineer 42. Padraic Gibson, Senior Researcher, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney 43. Vandana Ram, Artist 44. Victoria Baldwin, Administrator 45. Robin Jeffrey, Retired Academic 46. Nadia Rhook, Lecturer, Latrobe University 47. Mohamed Masood, President, Werribee Islamic Centre 48. Anthony P. D’Costa, Chair and Professor of Contemporary Indian Studies, University of Melbourne 49. Yamini Narayanan, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Deakin University 50. Monimalika Sengupta, PhD Candidate, Monash University 51. Parichay Patra, Doctoral Candidate, Monash University, Australia 52. Lucy Honan, Teacher, Australian Education Union Councillor 53. Arka Chattopadhyay, PhD student, University of Western Sydney 54. Rev.Dato’ Dr.Sumana Siri, Buddhist Cardinal of Europe, Buddhist Realists’ Movement, U.K.,Italy & France 55. Kalpana Ram, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Macquarie University 56. Dr Sagar Sanyal, Adjunct lecturer, University of Melbourne 57. Piergiorgio Moro, Secretary, Australia Asia Worker Links 58. Beth Sometimes, Researcher, VCA, Melbourne University 59. Russell Smith, Lecturer, Australian National University 60. Anuparna Mukherjee, Ph.D. Researcher, ANU 61. Amy Thomas, PhD Candidate, University of Technology, Sydney 62. Shak Sandhu, Restaurant Manager 63. Stephen Church, Doctoral Student/Casual Lecturer & Tutor, University of New South Wales 64. Angela Smith, Researcher, North Africa Mixed Migration Task Force 65. Balraj Sangha, Justice Of The Peace, Australian Labor Party 66. Emma Torzillo, Medical Doctor, University of Sydney and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney 67. Anne Brewster, Associate Professor, UNSW 68. Lalitha Chelliah, Nurse, 3 CR Broadcaster; Socialist Alliance member 69. Max Kaiser, PhD Candidate, University of Melbourne 70. Dr Amanda Gilbertson, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Melbourne 71. Faisal Al-Asaad, Graduate Research, University of Melbourne 72. Jerome Small, Industrial Organiser, Socialist Alternative 73. Milo Adler-Gillies, Student, Paris 8 74. Priya Chacko, Lecturer, University of Adelaide 75. Vivien Seyler, Administrative Officer, South Asian Studies Association of Australia 76. Bina Fernandez, Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne 77. Ghassan Hage, Professor, University of Melbourne 78. Maria Elander, Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne 79. Edward Mussawir, Lecturer, Griffith University 80. Julia Lomas, PhD Candidate, Art History And Theory, Monash University 81. Chris Andrews, Associate Professor, Western Sydney University 82. Ben Silverstein, Lecturer, UNSW 83. Alexandra Watkins, Academic, Deakin University 84. Isabella Ofner, Researcher and Lecturer, The University of Melbourne 85. Bina D’Costa, Academic, Department of International Relations, The Australian National University 86. Shweta Kishore, Teaching Associate, Monash University 87. Léuli Eshraghi, PhD Candidate, Monash University 88. Dr. Ridwanul Hoque, Visiting Scholar at La Trobe Law School, La Trobe University 89. Kristen Smith, Medical Anthropologist, University of Melbourne 90. Joan Nestle, Independent Writer 91. Adrian McNeil, Senior Lecturer, Monash University 92. Parakrama Niriella, Theatre and Film Director, National Federation of Theatre Artists Sri Lanka 93. Cait Storr, Sessional lecturer and PhD candidate, Melbourne Law School 94. Greg Bailey, Hon. Research Fellow in Asian Studies (Sanskrit), La Trobe University 95. Ian Woolford, Lecturer, La Trobe University 96. Michael Stevenson, Retired 97. Dolly Kikon, Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Melbourne 98. Jasmine Ali, Researcher, RMIT University 99. Dr Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Senior Fellow, Resource, Environment & Development Program, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University 100. Alison Young, Professor, University of Melbourne 101. Usha Natarajan, Law Professor, American University in Cairo 102. Ekta Sharma, Poet & Activist 103. Rose Parfitt, Research Fellow, Melbourne Law School 104. Suzette Mayr, PhD Student, University of New South Wales 105. Leigh Hopkinson, Writer 106. Amy Parish, PhD Candidate, UNSW 107. Samantha Balaton-Chrimes, Lecturer in International Studies, Deakin University 108. Audrey Yue, Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne.

5. U.S Community Organisations.
SOLIDARITY WITH INDIA STRUGGLE IS GLOBAL & ONGOING: We are community, student and legal activists in the United States fighting racialized and Islamaphobic state repression and the continuing assault of neoliberalism in our universities, workplaces and communities. As we watch India’s students and activists mobilize in mass for the right to dissent in the face of state sanctioned violence and relentless harassment we realize the many ways in which our struggles are interconnected. We send strong messages of solidarity to all students, workers, communities and human rights defenders throughout India struggling against an increasingly repressive right-wing nationalist and neoliberal regime. We salute Rohith Vemula , the Dalit scholar & poetic writer whose brave act ignited new and important waves of protest throughout India. Rohith reminded many of the Tunisian street vendor who five years ago took his own life in protest of state and economic violence, igniting calls for “Bread, Freedom, Social Justice and Human Dignity.” Rohith’s life and words remind us of the importance of supporting the resistance of women, men and other genders against caste apartheid, global apartheid and all systematic racism. We honor the Ambedkarite movement for its immense contribution to these struggles. We salute Umar Khalid & his fellow student organizers who have consistently stood up for the rights of vulnerable & oppressed people including victims of anti-terrorism laws and victims of militarized policies such as operation green hunt and the ongoing occupation of Kashmir. We applaud the efforts of those students who have reminded the world of the brutal occupation of Kashmir and the illegal execution of Afzal Guru an act used to criminalize these students. We are horrified to hear of the killings of Shaista Hameed & Danish Farooq , young university students gunned down by government forces in Kashmir the day before the Modi regime started its attacks against #JNU. Where is justice for these students? We stand in solidarity with student leader Kanhaiya Kumar. He has faced cruel violence during his detention. We applaud every student, lawyer and journalist who have supported Kanhaiya in the face of attacks. We fully condemn the recent acid attack on tribal rights activist & teacher Soni Sori in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. For her efforts to bring justice to local peoples she has long been the target of the State. There are many facing similar violence. We have increasingly heard reports of journalists and human rights defenders attacked and expelled from Chhattisgarh under police pressure. We know such actions are a meant to hide the immense abuses taking place in this State by the regime. We salute all who continue to risk their lives in exposing this truth. We condemn the brutal and Islamophobic lynching of Mohammad Aklaq in Dadri this past fall. Such blatant attacks as Dadri are inspired by the right-wing nationalism of the the ruling party, sanctioned by the both the inaction and actions of the State. We continue to organize global acts of solidarity with India’s Workers in all sectors who are struggling in various ways for their right to organize and for their basic dignity. Workers have been met with extraordinary violence and criminalization as a result, including the brutal attacks on thousands of protesting Honda workers Haryana last week. We add our support for the call to free the unfairly accused workers of Maruti Suzuki in Haryana and the imprisoned workers of Pricol in Tamil Nadu. We salute countless students like Umar in Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata and allover who have consistently shown their solidarity with the global movement to free Palestine. We understand that as the BJP led regime strengthens relations with Israel such solidarity increases the vulnerability of students. We salute your bravery. In our work and activism in the U.S. and globally we will continue to educate ourselves and support the important political, economic and social struggles taking place in India and South Asia. This support begins here. We will not tolerate U.S. normalization with the repressive Modi regime, just as we challenge their relationships with the oppressive States of Israel and Egypt and others. The struggle is global. We offer our full support and solidarity as you fight for: • Justice for Rohith Vemula, through the resignation of VC Appa Rao and the passage of the Rohith Act in Universities to stop systemic oppression of Dalit students. • Dismantling Caste Apartheid. • Protection of the right of political dissent for all in India, U.S. and throughout the world. • An end to the demonization & threats of violence against Umar Khalid, his fellow student organizers & their families & and the removal of all ‘sedition’ charges against all students. • Release of JNU Student Kanhaiya Kumar, Cancellation of the FIR (Charging report) against Him, and accountability for the shameful attacks on Kanhaiya by lawyers and journalist while appearing in Court. • Release of Kashmiri intellectual, and Delhi University Professor Syed Abdur Rahman (SAR) Gilani on so-called “sedition charges”. • Justice for the deaths of Shaista Hameed & Danish Farooq. • Full demilitarization of Kashmir. • Justice for Soni Sori and an end to the attacks on of lawyers & journalists exposing human rights abuses in Chhattisgarh. • An end to the criminalization of organized Workers throughout the country. ENDORSING ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDE Al-Awda New York, Palestine Right to Return Coalition, http://al-awdany.org/ Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, http://samidoun.net/ Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee, https://revolutionarystudents.wordpress.com/ New York Students for Justice in Palestine, https://nycsjp.wordpress.com/ American Muslims for Palestine, New York & New Jersey Chapters, https://www.facebook.com/AMPNY/ Muslim American Association, New York, https://www.facebook.com/MuslimAmericanSocietyNY/ National Lawyers Guild, International Committee, http://nlginternational.org/ Labor For Palestine, http://laborforpalestine.net/ International Action Center, http://www.iacenter.org/

6. Students and Faculty at Johns Hopkins University at Johns Hopkins University, U.S.
We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with the students, staff and faculty of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi in their efforts to protect the freedom of expression, public engagement and dissent on campuses. We strongly condemn the undemocratic and unconstitutional actions of the front organizations of the ruling BJP government, including 1) police raids on student hostels 2) the arrest of the JNU student union president under an archaic and draconian ‘sedition’ law, and 3) violence against and intimidation of students and teachers in public spaces such as courts of law. We further condemn the circumvention of due process by the ensuing media trial, which attempts to frame JNU as a den of ‘anti-national activities’. We see these events as part of a larger attack on public higher education in India, as evinced in the slashing of funds, ideologically driven appointments to administrative posts, as well as the bullying and intimidation of students that led to the recent death of Rohith Vemula in Hyderabad University. Furthermore, we see its connections with a growing climate of intolerance in the public sphere towards religious and sexual minorities, Dalits, rationalists/atheists, intellectuals and dissenters. We demand the immediate and unconditional release of Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of the JNU Students Union. We also demand the release of others arrested under the antiquated sedition law, including Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya and Professor S.A.R. Geelani. Finally, we demand an immediate stop to the harassment and intimidation of other students, and the withdrawal of the police from the JNU campus. We are committed to democratic debate and engagement in the public sphere, and to the protection of universities as autonomous spaces where diverse and opposing views can be expressed, debated and discussed in an atmosphere free from threats and intimidation. Just as we at Johns Hopkins have been challenged to think about the university’s engagement with civil society and politics, we uphold the role of JNU and other universities as places that enable critique and conversations toward a more equitable and just society. We commend the courage and resilience of our colleagues in JNU who stand their ground against the attacks on the culture of academic freedom in India. Burge Abiral, Department of Anthropology Elmirasadat Alihosseini, Department of Anthropology Samantha Agarwal, Department of Sociology Ghazal Asif, Department of Anthropology Rishi Awatramani, Department of Sociology Swayam Bagaria, Department of Anthropology Mariam Banahi, Department of Anthropology Sara Berry, Department of History (retired) Hester Betlem, Department of Anthropology (2012) Caroline Block, Department of Anthropology Andrew Brandel, Department of Anthropology Linda Braun, Department of History Hannah Bunkin, Anthropology Sruti Chaganti, Department of Anthropology Valentina Dallona, Department of Sociology Andrez Dapuez, National Science Research Council Argentina Veena Das, Department of Anthropology Mitra Ebrahimi, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering Serra Hakyemez, Department of Anthropology Fouad Halbouni, Department of Anthropology Clara Han, Department of Anthropology Salman Hasan, Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine Gregoire Hervouet-Zeiber, Department of Anthropology Jenny Hubbard, Department of Anthropology Amrita Ibrahim, Department of Anthropology Naveeda Khan, Department of Anthropology Paul Kohlbry, Department of Anthropology Bridget Kustin, Department of Anthropology Amy Krauss, Department of Anthropology Michael Levien, Department of Sociology Manu Madhav, Mind/Brain Institute Neena Mahadev, (Anthropology 2013) Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Germany Paola Marrati, Humanities Center Misha Mintz-Roth, Department of History Kirsten Moore-Sheeley, Department of History of Medicine Juan Obarrio, Department of Anthropology Anand Pandian, Department of Anthropology Rashi Pant, Department of Cognitive Sciences Bican Polat, Department of Anthropology Deborah Poole, Department of Anthropology Maya Ratnam, Department of Anthropology Arpan Roy, Department of Anthropology Aditi Saraf, Department of Anthropology Vaibhav Saria, Department of Anthropology (2014) Erica Schoenberger, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering Mac Skelton, Department of Anthropology Thomas Thornton, Department of Anthropology Rochelle Tobias, Department of German and Romance Languages Tulio Zille, Department of Political Science.

7. Academicians in Gujarat.
We, members of the academic community of Gujarat, are extremely disturbed by the recent events in Jawaharlal Nehru University and the developments thereafter. We feel worried about the emerging dangers against the right to dissent and freedom of speech. We believe that the disturbances in JNU including slogans against India could have been easily avoided without the moral policing by political forces. The demonstrations could have been patently handled by the vice chancellor – if necessary by setting up an internal committee to investigate. We firmly believe that the freedom of academic institutions is an essential condition for knowledge promotion and sharpening discourses, as academic institutions of higher learning are the embodiment of thought, science, creativity, knowledge and critique, and there cannot be an upfront limitation on their power to think and express. This freedom should not have been violated by the government or any outside forces. We are shocked to watch the behavior of the lawyers, who took the law in their hands and attacked students, teachers, journalists and even Supreme Court Panel members. Equally shocking was the behavior of the Delhi Police, who supported lawyers by watching it as mute spectators. The misuse of the sedition law and outright violence of lawyers worry us, as they signal a great danger to our human rights and democratic values. We demand impartial inquiry into the events that have taken place in JNU and in the Patiala House Court and punishment to the guilty when necessary. We want that the right to speech and the right to dissent are ensured to all citizens of our country. Nationalism evolves gradually with the progress in democracy and growth of egalitarian society; and we believe that its interpretation should not be left to political parties. At the same time, free discussion on nationalism particularly in academic institutes must be encouraged. Signed by: Members of academic community of Gujarat; Date: 22nd February, 2016 List of Academicians from Gujarat Sr.No. Des. Name and Surname Working Place Location 1 Prof. AKASH ACHARYA Center for Social Studies Surat 2 Dr. MUNISH ALAGH Sardar Patel Institute of Economic and Social Research Ahmedabad 3 Prof. DINESH AWASTHI Sardar Patel Institute of Economic and Social Research Ahmedabad 4 Prof. RAKESH BASANT Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 5 Dr. GUARI BHARAT CEPT University Ahmedabad 6 Mr. ARUP LAL CHAKRABORTY Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar 7 Mr. ATANU CHATTERJEE Center For Development Alternatives Ahmedabad 8 Prof. KESHAB DAS Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 9 Ms. JIGNA DESAI CEPT University Ahmedabad 10 Prof. KIRAN DESAI Center for Social Studies Surat 11 Dr. RENU DESAI CEPT University Ahmedabad 12 Prof. ERROL D’SOUZA Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 13 Dr. SWETA GARG Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology Gandhinagar 14 Dr. AMRITA GHATAK Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 15 Prof. SRUBABATI GOSWAMI Physical Research Laboratory Ahmedabad 16 Prof. INDIRA HIRWAY Center For Development Alternatives Ahmedabad 17 Prof. SUDARSHAN IYANGAR Ahmedabad 18 Prof. SADAN JHA Cetre For Social Studies Surat 19 Dr. KISHOR JOSE Central University, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 20 Prof. SATYAKAM’ JOSHI Center for Social Studies Surat 21 Dr. RUTUL JOSHI CEPT University Ahmedabad 22 Prof. RITA KOTHARI Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar 23 Dr. PRIYA RANJAN KUMAR Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 24 Dr. SHAILENDRA KUMAR Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 25 Dr. RINA KUMARI Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 26 Dr. SONY KUNJAPPAN Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 27 Dr. DARSHINI MAHADEVIA CEPT University Ahmedabad 28 Prof. NITI MEHTA Ahmedabad 29 Dr. RUDRA MAVAYAN MISHRA Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 30 Dr. ATUL MISHRA Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 32 Dr AMISHAL MODI Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology Gandhinagar 33 Dr. SIBA SANKAR MOHANTY Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 34 Mr. NAHAR MOHHAMED Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 35 Prof. SEBASTIAN MORRIS Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 36 Prof. TARA NAIR Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 37 Prof. R. PARTHASARATHY Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 38 Dr Arjun Patel Center for Social Studies Surat 39 Dr. JHARNA PATHAK Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 40 Dr. MINAL PATHAK CEPT University Ahmedabad 41 Dr. ITISHREE PATTNAIK Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 43 Prof. K. R. RAMANATHAN Physical Research Laboratory Ahmedabad 44 Prof. RAGHVAN RANGARAJAN Physical Research Laboratory Ahmedabad 45 Dr. ANIL KUMAR ROY CEPT University Ahmedabad 46 Prof. C N RAY CEPT University Ahmedabad 47 Dr. DHANANJAY RAI Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 48 Dr. ADITI NATH SARKAR Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology Gandhinagar 49 Ms SHACHI SANGHAVI CEPT University Ahmedabad 50 Prof. AMITA SHAH Center For Development Alternatives Ahmedabad 51 Prof. GHANSHAYAM SHAH Center for Social and Development Study Ahmedabad 52 Ms. NEHA SHAH L J Institute of management Ahmedabad 53 Prof. SHRUTI SHARMA Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 54 Prof. SUKHPAL SINGH Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 55 Ms. MELISSA SMITH CEPT University Ahmedabad 56 Ms. POOJA SUSAN THOMAS Ahmedabad 57 Prof. JEEMOL UNNI Institute of Rural Management, Anand Anand 58 Prof. PURNIMA VERMA Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 50 Dr. P K VISHWANATHAN Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad 60 Dr. UMESH YADAV Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 61 Dr HEMANT KUMAR Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 62 Ms A ANUPAMA Central University Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 63 Dr KHAIKHOLEN HAOKIP Central University, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 64 Dr BERYL ANAND Central University, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar 65 Dr TULIKA TRIPATHI Central University, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar

8. Members of Cornell University.
We, the undersigned members of Cornell University strongly condemn the arbitrary, unconstitutional, and anti-democratic actions which have been taken against the students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in India. We demand an immediate end to all police action on campus, a withdrawal of all frivolous charges against the President of the JNU Students’ Union, Kanhaiya Kumar, and an end to the campaign of harassment and intimidation against students at the university. That Kanhaiya Kumar is being held on account of sedition, a product of an archaic and colonial-era law (IPC 124A), is shocking and abhorrent. The existence and validity of this law in India has been called into question time and again. This incident reinforces the need to reconsider its continued existence in the Indian constitution. The agenda of the present Indian government to create a homogeneous discourse of nationalism that privileges an upper caste, Hindu, male worldview is particularly worrisome. There has been a pattern of marginalization and suppression of minority views and dissent. The deliberate targeting of Umar Khalid, and other students as ‘anti-national Muslim terrorists’ is in keeping with the agenda of the state to create and fight false enemies. This is a dangerous trend and completely antithetical to the democratic and secular ethos that India stands for. There has been an attempt to brand all students and faculty of JNU as anti-national. This is creating an environment of terror. People are getting arrested and beaten because they look like JNU students, and there is continuous presence of a violent mob at the JNU gates. There have been violent attacks on JNU faculty, reporters, and Kanhaiya Kumar inside the Patiala House court complex, not once but twice, with the police standing by as silent spectators. In addition, the sexual harassment of women protesters (both students and faculty) is repugnant and highly condemnable. We believe that universities are places of debate, discussion, and dissent for people belonging to various backgrounds and ideologies. This attack on the students of JNU is an attempt to stop any kind of political discourse and discussion in university campuses and among students in India. This is in line with a pattern of state repression that has been visible in other Indian campuses like the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), University of Hyderabad, and most recently in Jadavpur University. We stand in solidarity with the ongoing students’ movement in JNU to protect campus democracy, autonomy, and the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. We admire the teacher-student solidarity in JNU in the the wake of these protests, and are inspired by it. We extend our wholehearted support to this struggle against state repression in academic spaces. 1. Debak Das, Government, Graduate 2. Reet Chaudhuri, Applied and Engineering Physics, Graduate 3. Andi Kao, ILR,Graduate 4. Shiuli Vanaja, Applied Economics, Graduate 5. Disha Mendhekar, City and Regional Planning, Graduate 6. Rumela Sen, Government, Graduate 7. Nidhi Mahajan, Anthropology, Faculty 8. Arwa Awan, History, Undergraduate 9. Yagna Nag Chowdhuri , Asian Studies, Graduate 10. Shivrang Setlur, History, Graduate 11. Jeff Mathias, Science and Technology Studies, Graduate 12. James Ingoldsby, English, Graduate 13. Geethika Dharmasinghe, Asian Studies, Graduate 14. Bhavya Paliwal, Applied Economics, Graduate 15. Shubha Bharadwaj, CIPA, Graduate 16. Shreya Bhardwaj, CIPA, Graduate 17. Pratiti Deb, Physics, Undergraduate 18. Kareem Hamdy, Applied & Engineering Physics Alumnus 19. Nazli Konya, Government, Graduate 20. Archishman Raju, Physics, Graduate 21. Tiffany Fotopoulos, Undergraduate 22. Charis Boke, Anthropology, Graduate 23. Jesse Goldberg, English, Graduate 24. Kevin Duong, Government, Graduate 25. Ti-Yen Lan, Physics, Graduate 26. Tripti Poddar, Public Administration, Graduate 27. Marc Kohlbry, Comparative Literature, Graduate 28. Alana Staiti, Science and Technology Studies, Graduate 29. Ed Quish, Government, Graduate 30. Paul Ahrens, ILR School, Graduate 31. Divya Sharma, Development Sociology, Graduate 32. Tanvi Rao, Applied Economics, Graduate 33. Michaela Brangan, English, Graduate 34. Sena Aydin, Anthropology, Graduate 35. Sam Whitehead, Physics, Graduate 36. Philip S Burnham, Physics, Graduate 37. Van Tran, Government, Graduate 38. Naoki Sakai, Asian Studies, Faculty 39. Tim Vasko, Government, Graduate 40. Jacob Swanson, Government, Graduate 41. Robert Lincoln Hines, Government, Graduate 42. Michael Jones-Correa, Government, Faculty 43. Mitul Dey Chowdhury, Physics, Undergraduate 44. Stephen Roblin, Government, Graduate 45. Kaitlin Emmanuel, South Asian Studies, Graduate 46. Hao Shi, Physics 47. James Sethna, Physics 48. Andre Keiji Kunigami, Asian Studies, Graduate 49. Natalie Nesvaderani, Anthropology, Graduate 50. Katherine Quinn, Physics 51. Pauliina Patana, Government, Graduate 52. Jose Sanchez-Gomez, Government 53. Nandini, CIPA, Graduate 54. Xavier Eddy, Industrial and Labor Relations, Undergraduate 55. Martijn Mos, GOVT, Graduate 56. Gargi Wable, Nutrition, Graduate 57. Youyi Zhang, Government, Graduate 58. Jimena Valdez, Government, Graduate 59. Brinda Kumar, History of Art, Alumna 60. Colin Chia, Government, Graduate 61. Elizabeth Acorn, Government,Graduate 62. Margaret Jodlowski, Applied Econ and Management,Graduate 63. Anne Raccuglia, Art, Graduate 64. Natasha Bissonauth, Art History, Graduate 65. Hayden Kantor, Anthropology, Graduate 66. Gustavo Quintero, Romance Studies, Graduate 67. Lara Fresko, History of Art and Visual Studies, Graduate 68. Iftikhar Dadi, History of Art, Faculty 69. Aye Min Thant, Asian Studies, Graduate 70. Stephanie Clark, AAP, Graduate 71. Whitney Taylor, Government, Graduate 72. Sadia Shirazi, History of Art and Visual Studies, Graduate 73. Prabudhya Bhattacharyya, Physics, Undergraduate 74. Sibyl Ashcraft-Holt, Classics, Undergraduate 75. Rebecca John, FGSS, Alumna 76. Ian MacCormack, Physics, Undergraduate 77. Christina Zhang, History, Alumna 78. Daniel Brinkerhoff Young, Philosophy, Alumna 79. Veronica Pillar, Physics, Graduate 80. Elliot Padgett, Applied and Engineering Physics, Graduate 81. Lea Bonnefoy, Physics, Alumna 82. Myne Okoukoni, Arts & Sciences, Alumna 83. David Holmberg, Anthropology, Faculty 84. Heidi Kaila, Economics, Visiting graduate student 85. Megan Holtz, Applied and Engineering Physics, Graduate 86. Manfred Elfstrom, Department of Government, Graduate 87. José C., Department of Anthropology, Graduate 88. James Siegel, Anthropology & Asian Studies, (retired) Faculty 89. Rebekah Ciribassi, Anthropology, Graduate 90. Tyler Takaro, Physics, Undergraduate 91. Joseph Wraga, Physics, Alumna 92. Farhana Ahmad, City and Regional Planning, Graduate 93. Brenna Mockler, Physics, Undergraduate 94. Anthony Santa Maria, Economics; Feminist gender and sexuality studies; Africana studies, Recent Graduate 95. Caroline Aust, Physics, Alumna 96. Chelsea Cole, Archaeology, Masters 97. Tom Davidson, Sociology, Graduate 98. Daniel Freund, Applied Mathematics, Graduate 99. Anurag Meshram, ILR, Masters 100. Janet Smith, DSOC, Graduate 101. Mel White, Engineering, Graduate 102. Rohini Jalan, ILR School (OB Dept), Graduate 103. Max McComb, History, Graduate 104. Natalie Hofmeister, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Graduate 105. Benjamin P Cohen, Biomedical Engineering, Graduate 106. Ewan Robinson, Development Sociology, Graduate 107. Airlia Shaffer, Physics, Alumna 108. Laura Menchaca Ruiz, Anthropology, Graduate 109. Valeria Dani, Romance Studies, Graduate 110. Brian Clarke, Science & Technology Studies, Graduate 111. Kelsey Utne, History, Graduate 112. Sarah Portway, Fiber Science and Apparel Design, Graduate 113. Lizabeth McKinney, ILR, Graduate 114. Kristie McAlpine, ILR Human Resource, Graduate 115. Molly Reed, History, Graduate 116. Vincent Burgess, Asian Studies, Graduate 117. Marcela Villarreal, Food Science, Graduate 118. Sara Keene, Development Sociology, Graduate 119. Asli Menesve, Art History, Graduate 120. Nicholas Huelster, Romance Studies, Graduate 121. Kurt A. Jordan, Anthropology & American Indian Studies, Faculty 122. Nick Krachler, Industrial and Labor Relations, Graduate 123. Amanda Denham, FSAD, Graduate 124. Vincent Hiscock, English, Graduate 125. Sahar Tavakoli, Science and Technology Studies, Graduate 126. Satya Mohanty, English, Faculty 127. Chris Hesslbein, Science and Technology Studies, Graduate 128. Durba Ghosh, History, Faculty 129. Robert Travers, History, Faculty 130. Anne Blackburn, Asian Studies, Faculty 131. Bronwen Bledsoe, South Asia, Faculty 132. Lucinda Ramberg, Anthropology, Faculty 133. Katryn Evinson, Romance Studies, Graduate 134. Enongo Lumumba-Kasongo, Science and Technology Studies, Graduate 135. Chris Hesselbein, STS, Graduate 136. Olivia Duell, English and Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies, Alumna 137. Ujani Chakraborty, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Graduate 138. Madhura Raghavan, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Graduate 139. Anaar Desai-Stephens, Music, Graduate Student Organizations: 1. Cornell Graduate Students United (Organizing and Steering Committees).

9. Members of the South Asian Community at Tufts and Harvard Universities, U.S.
As members of the South Asian communities at Tufts and Harvard, we stand in solidarity with the student protesters at Jawaharlal Nehru University against the unconstitutional detention of JNU Student Union president Kanhaiya Kumar and 7 other students on February 9th, as well as the subsequent illegal police action. These students have been charged with “sedition” for peacefully protesting India’s execution of Afzal Guru, an accused in the 2001 attack on Parliament, under an archaic, colonial law. We extend our solidarity to those who were beaten by law enforcement outside Patiala House District Court while voicing support for Kumar. We condemn the repression of progressive voices such as Umar Khalid and other students and faculty by the Hindu right-wing forces of the government. In a historic moment of dissent and political criticism, we are reminded that the engendering of Hindutva nationalism, religious communalism and conformity and other divisive, authoritarian ideologies propagated by the BJP government perpetuates state-sanctioned violence. This forced conformity to what is propagated by the Indian government as “nationalist”, is a deliberate silencing of political, intellectual and academic freedom (azaadi) and is an assault on the secular and democratic fabric of the nation. As students of South Asian and diasporic communities in the United States, we express our solidarity. We vehemently reject the baseless charges of sedition and the unwarranted police action that are a result of a jingoistic and bigoted concept of “nationalism”. We condemn the injustice taking place on JNU campus and stand in support of its brave students, faculty and all others who rise against the fascist behaviour of the Indian state. Signed, Tufts’ South Asian Political Action Committee (SAPAC) Tufts’ Association of South Asians (TASA) Harvard South Asian Association (SAA).

10. Students, Faculty and Other Workers at Duke University, U.S.
We, the undersigned students, faculty, and other workers at Duke University in Durham, NC, USA, condemn the violent suppression of students, faculty, and workers at Jawaharlal Nehru University who have simply called for the right to participate in democracy. When Kanhaiya Kumar, President of the JNU student union, was arrested on February 13th on sedition charges, students, faculty, and thinkers across the subcontinent and the diaspora knew that a colonial-era law that forbids dissent against the state had been enacted in the service of the authoritarian aims of the ruling BJP party. In total, five JNU students now face sedition charges for allegedly raising what the Delhi Police term ‘anti-national’ slogans during a protest event held to commemorate the state’s execution of Afzal Guru in 2013. The arrest of Kumar also reeks of caste prejudice, a subject also on the minds of students, faculty, and activists troubled by the recent death of Rohit Vemula, a Dalit activist and organizer, at the University of Hyderabad on January 17, 2016. This is in addition to widespread movements across Indian campuses to address issues of gender discrimination in student housing. The cracks in the façade of India’s famed democracy are becoming wider and more visible as the ruling government’s enforcement of Hindu nationalist ideology will seemingly stop at nothing to silence any dissent against the state. Students and faculty at JNU have courageously stood up in defense of the majority of people in today’s India who are excluded from national belonging, labeled as outsiders by way of being Muslim, Dalit, queer, Kashmiri (the list goes on and on). Journalists who have joined the student and faculty protesters were attacked on two consecutive days last week at the Patiala House court under the noses of the Delhi Police. The Delhi Police’s dubious charges of sedition rest on tweets from unverifiable Twitter handles. The Commissioner of Police has also made deeply troubling statements contravening jurisprudence about how it is up to JNU students to “prove their innocence.” The baseless accusations of anti-nationalism that are being charged by the ultra-nationalist ideologues are built upon a fantasy of an imaginary enemy. We stand in solidarity with all the people who are being viciously harassed, killed, or pushed to committing suicide for thinking differently. The right to speak freely and openly critique state policies was poison to the colonial state but is a necessity for a functioning democracy. We believe in the radical possibilities of criticism and the freedom to express discontent and dissatisfaction against ruling governments and national institutions, whether at JNU, in Kashmir or Manipur. The events unfolding in and around JNU are not an isolated case. They reflect a larger pattern of routinized state violence that has been deployed to stifle any dissenting body and voice. We support the protests in the spirit of international scholars’ solidarity. We believe in creating spaces that enable and generate an environment for fostering critical debate and engagement. We stand with students. 22 February 2016 Duke University Durham, NC USA 1. Jessica Namakkal, Faculty, International Comparative Studies and Women’s Studies 2. Anastasia Kārkliņa, PhD Student. Literature. 3. Jess Issacharoff, PhD Candidate, Literature 4. Kenneth Wissoker, Editorial Director, Duke University Press 5. Eli Meyerhoff, Faculty, Program in Education 6. Monica Huerta, Post Doc, Women’s Studies 7. Liliana Paredes, Faculty, Romance Studies 8. Sumathi Ramaswamy, Professor of History and Interim Chair, Department of History 9. Emily Stewart, Staff, Duke Human Rights Center@FHI 10. Elizabeth Ault, Assistant Editor, Duke University Press 11. Patricia Bass, PhD candidate, Dept of Art, Art History and Visual Studies 12. Leela Prasad, Faculty, Religious Studies, Asian & Middle Eastern Studies 13. Tamar Shirinian, Ph.D. Candidate, Cultural Anthropology 14. Can, Phd Student, Cultural Anthropology 15. Aarthi Vadde, Faculty, English 16. James Chappel, Asst Prof, Dept of History 17. Savannah Lynn, student, psychology/women’s studies 18. Alena, Undergraduate, Public Policy 19. Amy Wang, Undergrad, Pratt School of Engineering 20. Zach Levine, PhD Candidate, Cultural Anthropology 21. Prasana Khatiwoda, MSc, Duke Global Health Institute 22. Kena Wani, Graduate Student, History Department 23. Sanjeev Dasgupta, Undergraduate Student, International Comparative Studies and Political Science 24. Michael Becker, Graduate Student, History Department 25. Brett McCarty, ThD Candidate, Duke Divinity School 26. Christie Lawrence, Undergraduate student, Sanford School of Public Polocy 27. Heather Gates, Graduate Student, History 28. Matt Whitt, Post-Doc, Thompson Writing Program 29. Anna Marie Keppel Benson, Student 30. Mani Rao, PhD candidate, Religious Studies 31. Carla Hung, PhD Candidate, Duke University 32. Brad Wood, PhD Candidate, History 33. Sydney Roberts, Undergraduate Student, Literature Department 34. Leo Ching, Faculty , Asian and Middle Eastern Studies 35. Jennifer Ansley, Faculty, Thompson Writing Program 36. Robin Kirk, Faculty, Duke Human Rights Center 37. Mario LaMothe, Post-doc, Women’s Studies 38. Ara Wilson , Associate Professor , Women’s Studies & Cultural Anthropology 39. kathi weeks, Faculty, Women’s Studies 40. Jessica Malitoris, PhD Candidate, Department of History 41. Samuel Bagg, PhD candidate, Political Science 42. Sucheta Mazumdar ,Associate Professor , Department of History 43. Vasant Kaiwar, Visiting Associate Professor, Department of History 44. Hillary Richards, graduate student, Duke Global Health Institute 45. Giulia Ricco , PhD candidate, Romance Studies 46. Rachel White, Duke Alumna, Trinity School of Arts and Sciences 47. Yasmine Singh, PhD Candidate, Religious Studies 48. Ashton Merck, PhD Student, History Department 49. Libby Dotson, undergraduate student , International Comparative Studies 50. Prahlad Krishnan, Undergraduate student, International Comparative Studies 51. Mark Olson, Faculty, Art, Art History, & Visual Studies 52. Abdul Kaakar, Master of International development fellow, Public Policy 53. Carolyn Yao, Undergraduate, Trinity/Dept. of Computer Science 54. Erick Aguilar Ramos, Undergraduate Student, Trinity College 55. Priscilla Wald, Professor, English and Women’s Studies 56. Suzanne Katzenstein, Research Scholar,The Kenan Institute for Ethics 57. Yael Lazar,PhD candidate, Graduate Program in Religion 58. Felicia Arriaga, PhD Candidate, Sociology 59. Jehangir Malegam, Faculty, History 60. Caroline Garriott, Doctoral Student, History 61. Michael Hardt, Professor, Literature Program 62. Ameem Lutfi, PhD Candidate, Anthropology 63. Jose Romero, PhD Candidate , Cultural Anthropology 64. Christina Tekie, PhD candidate, Cultural Anthropology 65. Robert L Reece, PhD Candidate, Sociology 66. Bennett D. Carpenter, PhD candidate, Literature.

11. Mumbai students extend support to JNU.
This is a petition to the Government of India from a collection of students from Mumbai colleges. The chief petitioners are students of a Mumbai college and can be contacted at studentswithjnu@gmail.com
We, the students of Mumbai extend our support to and express solidarity with the students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), who are under systematic attack from the Delhi Police and certain sections of the media. We do not endorse the slogans raised by a small group of people on the JNU campus, during a protest which marked the beginning of this entire episode. We certainly do not identify or sympathise with those who provoke violence against the people of India and the state. However, the manner in which the Government has dealt with this situation is alarming and distressing.
The JNU Student Union President Kanhaiya Kumar has been arrested by the police under charges of sedition. From all videos and eye witness accounts that have surfaced after the protest, it is clear that Kanhaiya Kumar was not part of the group chanting the slogans. A video of his speech has emerged where he makes it clear that he was not supporting that particular group of protestors and in fact asserts his faith in the Constitution of India.

Keeping this is mind, we must ask: what is the formal pretext under which he has been arrested? We do not believe it is acceptable for a police force to enter a University, which is intended to be a forum for debate and discussion, and arrest a student leader and lock him up in jail even though he has not broken any law. The media has been imploring the Delhi Police Commissioner to release evidence that suggests Kanhaiya Kumar raised slogans along with the group of protestors concerned. The police has so far not released any evidence against Kanhaiya. He has been charged under the Sedition law, which cannot be applied to anyone unless there has been incitement of violence against the state, and Kanhaiya has done anything but that. The arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional arrest of a student from a University seems to be a gross misuse of political power to stifle opinions that differ from those of the ruling establishment.

The larger problem is the way sections of the media and the Government are using this episode to tarnish JNU as a whole with one brush, calling it a ‘den of anti-nationals’. This kind of irresponsible rhetoric that maligns an educational institution of the country, is unfair and appears to serve a political narrative that does not tolerate dissenting voices. The assault of JNU students, staff and journalists by lawyers and BJP MLA OP Sharma outside Patiala House Court has only proved how those associated with the University are being victimized by those in the ruling dispensation. The refusal of the police to take action against the culprits of the Patiala House attack, and the determination to keep Kanhaiya behind bars, sends out a disturbing message to students across India : If you do not toe the line of the Government, a pretext will be found to punish you. This environment is not at all conducive for any educational institution.

We appeal to the conscience of the Prime Minister and request him to end this farce being enacted in JNU and release Kanhaiya Kumar. There is a problem with the slogans that were raised by some students of JNU and it needs to be addressed with the sensitivity it deserves and after sufficient thought has gone into it. Knee-jerk reactions like arresting a student leader can never be the solution.
 

The post Consolidated Solidarity Statements in Support of JNU appeared first on SabrangIndia.

we are with you kanhaiya
reaching out from our barred windows
all 2.5 million of US
we cross borders and seas
to smuggle in
wirecutters and metalfiles
and circuitbreakers
hidden deep
in these words and
outraged tears
we are with you
as you dance on this
multiheaded serpent
this global picture-in-picture-in-picture
of progress-in-democracy-in-prison-in-silence-in-fear
with you
shoulder to shoulder
as you scream over and over
abvpISobamaISbushISmodi
hand-in-hand with you
dear kanhaiya
as you christen
this revolution
with blood and urine
spilt in these corridors
of power
slick with the froth
of hindutva
with you always
as you stare down
this justice
turned
slippery and slick
and cold
until it is just / ice
 

Signed:
 
mouth
Alison Neff (Director, CCC)
Toorjo Ghose (Associate Professor, SP2, UPenn)
35 members of the CCC collective (who need to remain anonymous)
on behalf of
2.5 million who are currently incarcerated in the U.S. (who are forced to remain anonymous)
 

The post A Solidarity Poem for JNU from the Incarcerated Community of Philadelphia appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a speech that is now widely available on the internet, Kanhaiya Kumar spoke critically of the BJP government policies at a peaceful student meeting held at JNU which was well within his rights by the laws of the land.  This occurred a day after a group of unidentified students shouted slogans at an event that he had no part in organizing.  Legal luminaries have opined that those slogans about the rights of Kashmiris to independence from Indian military oppression over the last few decades, whether one might agree with them or not, do not amount to sedition.  Kanhaiya Kumar was, however, arrested by the police for ‘anti-national’ behaviour and for violating sedition laws against incitement of violence.  With no proof to substantiate the charge of sedition, his arrest can only be read as a reflection of the authoritarian nature of the current Indian government and its intolerance to any dissent. JNU is but the latest example of attempts to stifle dissenting student voices in university campuses across India, including others at FTII, BHU and University of Hyderabad. This is reflective of the current climate where higher education is being viewed as purely instrumental, captured by the logics of the neoliberal state and capital.

As researchers, scholars, and academics, we are extremely concerned with the manner in which the ruling government has so blatantly set aside India’s longstanding commitment to plurality in belief. The space and freedom to express diverse and divergent beliefs and opinions are the foundations for critical thought and expression that university spaces cultivate. We urge the Vice Chancellor of JNU, who gave the police permission to wrongfully detain and arrest JNU students, to recognize the momentum of support building up for them and to immediately step in to safeguard their rights.
Dated: February 22, 2016

Signatures in alphabetical order

1. Abeer Kapoor, Alumnus, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
2. Abhishek Hazra, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore
3. Aditi Arur, Consultant, J-PAL South Asia, Bangalore
4. Amman Madan, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru
5. Andrea Wright, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Rhode Island
6. Anjali Shivanand, Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School of India University, Bangalore
7. Aparna Sundar, Visiting Faculty, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
8. Andaleeb Rahman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore
9. Anwesa Bhattacharya, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
10. Archit Guha, Centre for Public History, Bangalore
11. Asha Verma, Alumnus, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
12. Ashwin, Independent Researcher, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
13. Atreyee Majumder, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
14. Avishek Ray, NIT Silchar
15. Bitasta Das, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16. Debjani Banerjee, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore
17. Devaki, L., Azim Premji University, Bangalore
18. Dhruva Desai, Alumnus, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
19. Elizabeth Thomas, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore
20. Gayatri Menon, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
21. Garima Jain, Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore
22. Girija K P, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore
23. Gowri Vijayakumar, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley
24. Hemangini Gupta, Department of Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies, Colby College, Maine
25. Issac Arul Selva, Human Rights Activist, Bangalore
26. Jasmeen Patheja , Blank Noise.
27. Jyothsna Belliappa, Bengaluru
28. Kanthi Krishnamurthy, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore
29. Kavya Murthy, Bangalore
30. Kinnari Pandya, Azim Premji University, Benguluru
31. K Ravichandran, Student, Azim Premji University , Bangalore
32. Lakshmi Arya, Independent scholar and writer, Bangalore
33. Lata Mani, Independent Researcher, Bengaluru
34. Lindsay Vogt, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara
35. Madhu Bhushan, Independent (re)searcher-activist, Bangalore
36. Manisha Anantharaman, Justice Community and Leadership, Saint Mary’s College of California
37. Maia Barkaia,(JNU, 2010), Tbilisi State University (Tbilisi) and University of Oxford, Oxford.
38. Manu V. Mathai, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
39. Muthatha Ramanathan, Bangalore
40. Navdeep Mathur, IIM Ahmedabad
41. Narendra Raghunath, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore
42. Neenu Suresh, National Law School of India University, Bangalore
43. Nikunja S. Bhuyan, Student, Azim Premji University, Bangalore.
44. Nimisha Agarwal, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
45. Nitya V, Bengaluru
46. Padma Baliga, St. Joseph’s College, Bengaluru
47. Padmini Ray Murray, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore
48. Pallavi Gaur, Student, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
49. Pooja Sagar, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore
50. P. P. Sneha, Bangalore
51. Prakriti Prajapati, Researcher, ATREE, Bengaluru
52. Pranesh Prakash, Bangalore
53. Preeti Kharb, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore
54. Rajeev Kumaramkandath, Christ University, Bengaluru
55. Rameshwara Nand Jha, Alumnus, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
56. Rashmi Sawhney, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore
57. Renny Thomas (JNU 2015), Department of Sociology, Jesus and Mary College, University of Delhi
58. Riddhi Pandey, Student, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
59. Robert M Geraci, Manhattan College (former Visiting Scholar at IISc), New York
60. Rolla Das, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
61. Sanam Roohi, NIAS, Bangalore and AISSR, University of Amsterdam
62. Sarah Jacobson, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
63. Savitha Suresh Babu, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
64. Sahil Sasidharan, Associate – Academics & Research, IIHS, Bangalore/Bengaluru
65. Sazana Jayadeva, The German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg
66. Scott Sorrell, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, New York
67. Sharad Sure, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
68. Sharmadip Basu, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
69. Shoibal Chakravarty, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
70. Shreyas Sreenath, Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta
71. Shreyas Srivatsa, Urban Planner & Architect, Bangalore
72. Shrishtee Bajpai, Alumnus, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
73. Shruti Ajit, Researcher, Kalpavriksh, Pune
74. Simy Joy, Independent Researcher, Ely, England
75. Smriti Srinivas, NAGARA, Bangalore
76. Soundarya Iyer, Student, NIAS, Bangalore
77. Sreechand Tavva, Post Graduate Student, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
78. Sreeparna Chattopadhyay, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
79. Subadra Panchanadeswaran, Adelphi University, New York
80. Subir Rana, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
81. Sufaid V, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
82. Sunandan, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
83. Sunayana Ganguly, Independent researcher and entrepreneur, Bangalore
84. Suraj Jacob, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
85. Tarang Singh, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
86. Tathagata Biswas. Azim Premji University, Bangalore
87. Vasanthi Mariadass, Srishti Institute for Art Design and Technology, Bangalore
88. V R Vachana, Alumna, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
89. Vidhya Raveendranathan, Centre For Modern Indian Studies, Georg- August- University, Gottingen, Germany
90. Vikas Maniar, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
91. Vinay K Sreenivasa, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
92. Vineeta, Alumnus, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
93. Vineeth Krishna E, Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore
94. Vivek Mishra, Alumnus, Azim Premji Univerisity, Bangalore
95. Vrashali Khandelwal, Student, Azim Premji University, Bangalore

The post Bangalore Research Network’s Letter of Solidarity with JNU appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We believe that these actions by the Indian state and its associated groups and institutions are part of a larger campaign to stifle dissenting voices in the country, especially on university campuses which have persistently resisted the capitalist, Brahmanical hegemony of the current government. This was clearly evident in the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula, a Dalit PhD student at Hyderabad Central University (HCU) last month. The similarity of the modus operandi in Hyderabad and Delhi is striking: Rohith and his comrades had been accused of ‘anti-national’ activities for their condemnation of the hanging of Yakub Memon, and suspended from their academic positions on these undemocratic grounds. Similar charges have been framed against the students of JNU for organizing an event in solidarity with the struggle of Kashmiri people for their right to self-determination. To make matters murkier, it is now certain that at the event, which also marked the third anniversary of the execution of Afzal Guru, the ABVP was involved in raising the controversial slogans that are being cited to justify the sedition charge. We are of the firm opinion that protesting against state violence is a fundamental right that must not become vulnerable to arbitrary violation by governments, police and university administrations.

We believe that the colonial-era laws of sedition — already diluted and read down by the Supreme Court — are an embarrassment to India’s democratic principles. The criminalization of dissent in this case reveals how India’s current political leadership has been unable to respect diversity and guarantee the full legal rights of its people. Its political program imagines the citizen as upper caste, heterosexual, male, Hindu; its economic program necessitates a blind faith in neoliberalism; and its social program continually imagines an enemy – the Muslim, the Dalit, the Left. It is not surprising that a government so debilitated and blinkered by its ideological narrowness has invoked the charge of sedition and sent police forces into the JNU campus, an action reminiscent of the worst years of Emergency.

We are also distressed by views expressed in certain sections of the Indian media regarding the legitimacy of political activism in public universities. This argument claims that since central and state governments subsidize education in public institutions, it is the responsibility of beneficiaries to refrain from critiquing state policies and to solely prioritize their studies. We firmly reject this cost-benefit understanding of education as shallow, apolitical, and deeply reactionary. As the saying goes, ‘education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire’. The current administration and sections of the media would prefer students to remain uncritical of the violence of Brahmanism, communalism, and neoliberal capitalism. But the Rohiths of the world will keep lighting a fire and keep burning down bigotry. We believe that both public education and free speech are fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, rights that have been earned through long struggle and rights that we will keep fighting for in India and elsewhere as we face systematic neoliberal onslaughts on dissent and education.

To our friends, colleagues and comrades in JNU, HCU, FTII and elsewhere, we stand with you in your resistance against state sponsored violence, which curbs any form of dissent on the one hand, and on the other, condones hate speech by Hindu nationalists. We believe that scholarship and the concomitant development of our critical faculties should be used in dreaming of and implementing a better, pluralistic and just society.
 

1. Charlotte Giles, PhD Student, Department of Asian Studies
2. Snehal Shingavi, Associate Professor, Department of English
3. Ramna Walia, PhD Student, Department of Radio-Television-Film
4. Adolfo R Mora, PhD Student, Department of Radio-Television-Film
5. Madiha Haque, MA Student, Department of Asian Studies
6. Saif Shahin, PhD Candidate, School of Journalism
7. Saleha Parvaiz, MA Student, Department of Asian Studies
8. Rupali Warke, Phd Student, History Department
9. Kathleen Longwaters, PhD Student, Department of Asian Studies
10. Rubi Sanchez, PhD Student, Department of Asian Studies
11. Claire Cooley, PhD Student, Department of Middle Eastern Studies
12. Justin Ben-Hain, PhD Student, Department of Asian Studies
13. Afsar Mohammad, Senior Lecturer, Department of Asian studies
14. Aniruddhan Vasudevan, PhD Student, Department of Anthropology
15. JhuCin Jhang, PhD Student, Department of Communication Studies
16. Julia Dehm, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Law
17. Charlotte Nunes, UT English Graduate, Postdoctoral Fellow, Southwestern University
18. Zack Shlachter, PhD Student, Department of History
19. Seth Uzman, Undergraduate, Department of Mathematics, Department of Economics
20. Abikal Borah, PhD Student, Department of History
21. Charalampos Minasidis, PhD Student, Department of History
22. Sam Lauber, Undergraduate, Department of Computer Science
23. Heather Houser, Associate Professor, Department of English
24. Robert Oppenheim, Associate Professor, Department of Asian Studies
25. Barbara Harlow, Professor, Department of English
26. Yoalli Rodríguez Aguilera, PhD Student, Institute of Latin American Studies
27. Tathagatan Ravindran, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Anthropology
28. Prisca Gayles, PhD Student, Institute of Latin American Studies
29. Jack Loveridge, PhD Candidate, Department of History
30. Chloe L. Ireton, Department of History
31. Luis Cataldo, undergraduate, Department of English
32. Swapnil Rai, PhD Candidate, School of Communication
33. Heather Hindman, Associate Professor, Department of Asian Studies
34. Magdalena Saldaña, PhD Student, School of Journalism
35. Danielle Kilgo, PhD Candidate, School of Journalism
36. Kristen Hogan, Education Coordinator, Gender & Sexuality Center
37. Robert Jensen, Professor, School of Journalism
38. Ryan Sharp, PhD Student, Department of English
39. Elizabeth Picherit, PhD Student, Department of English
40. Regina Mills, PhD Student, Department of English
41. Isaac McQuistion, Masters Student, Department of Asian Studies
42. Hannah V. Harrison, PhD Student, Department of English
43. Kristie Flannery, PhD Candidate, Department of History
44. Omer Ozcan, PhD Candidate,Department of Anthropology
45. Nikola Rajic, PhD Candidate, Department of Asian Studies
46. Mohammed Nabulsi, JD Candidate, School of Law
47. Jason Brownlee, Professor, Department of Government
48. Noah De Lissovoy, Associate Professor, College of Education
49. Martha Ann Selby, Professor and Chair, Department of Asian Studies
50. Amrita Mishra, PhD Student, Department of English
51. Morgan C. O’Brien, Ph.D candidate, Department of Radio-Television- Film
52. Tupur Chatterjee, Ph.D Candidate, Department of Radio-Television-Film
53. John Morán González, Associate Professor, Department of English
54. Colleen Montgomery, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Radio-Television-Film
55. Caitlin McClune, Ph.D Candidate, Department of Radio-Television-Film
56. Shilpa Parnami, PhD Candidate, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
57. Jinsook Kim, PhD Student, Department of Radio-Television-Film
58. Abdul Haque Chang, PhD alum, Department of Anthropology
59. Pete Kunze, PhD Student, Department of Radio-Television-Film

The post University of Texas Students and Faculty stand with JNU appeared first on SabrangIndia.