In response to charges of ‘heckling’: JNU seems to favour emotionalism over rule of law

Comprehending the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is a complex exercise in making sense of seemingly contradictory facts. Undoubtedly among the best universities in the country, it is nonetheless in the news for seemingly all the wrong reasons.

The latest controversy to rock the institute is that of a strong movement by the students and the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers' Association (JNUTA) for the continuation of the Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH).

The JNU administration recently dissolved the GSCASH and notified the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as per the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (UGC SH Regulations).

As a journalist who covers the JNU beat and tries to be unbiased and objective in the assessment of political events on the campus, my interest in this latest controversy was aroused after I was indirectly attacked and vilified in an article by JNU student and political activist Ajachi Chakrabarti, on the news site www.dailyO.in, in which he has referred to as a "heckler" a certain person who raised some questions in an after-dinner political meeting held at the Koyna Hostel in JNU on August 18, 2017.

I was that person.

While online abusing and presumptuous preconceptions seem to be the forte of certain political activists of the JNU, and are usually overlooked, the aggression and vilification that I encountered on the day of the meeting for simply asking an unbiased question is deeply disturbing, and symptomatic of the culture of aggression and violence that has become the norm in JNU, replacing the healthy culture of debate and discussion that existed there a few years ago. On the August 18, I was covering the much-publicised public meeting at Koyna Hostel, JNU. As I arrived at the hostel around 7 pm, I found a lone student pasting posters that bore the words "Ban the Khap", with provocative and almost accusatory statements demanding Rule of Law instead of Rule of Ideology.

Intrigued, I enquired what the posters referred to, since in none of them was there any reference to the GSCASH. An engaging conversation ensued, which made clear to me the contours of the controversy. The student's arguments against the GSCASH and the JNU administration were persuasive.

As a person who has never studied at JNU, nor has any affiliation to any of the myriad political parties on the campus, the controversy to me seemed like a lone man's struggle on technical grounds against an institution that was supported by the JNU administration and all the political parties on the campus.

I decided to not only report on the meeting, but also ask a simple question to the panelists during the subsequent question-answer session, to get their side of the story. The question that I asked was simply this: "How would you respond to the accusations that the present GSCASH is a "political khap" because it has no legal authority for existing since 13 Dec 2013 - the date on which the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 was notified - and the existing procedures of the GSCASH are ultra vires the Act since they prescribe (political) elections to a body with powers of a Civil Court, and have absolutely no reference to Appeals to the Local Complaints Committee as provided under the Parliamentary statute." The panelists first pretended to not understand my question. I was asked if I was calling the GSCASH illegal or saying that the procedures passed by the executive council of JNU are illegal, since the GSCASH was constituted by the JNU administration on recommendations of Prof Karuna Chanana Committee, and set up by the then vice chancelllor based on Supreme Court Guidelines in the case of Vishaka vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 August 1997, and the Saksham Guidelines issued by the UGC.

A long speech then cited how even the Justice J S Verma Committee report on prevention of sexual harassment at workplaces had held the GSCASH as an ideal model for India.

I humbly clarified that I was not questioning the legality of the GSCASH till December 13, 2013, up till which the GSCASH was a perfectly legal body rendering yeoman service to the cause of gender justice in higher educational institutes and worthy of emulation, but only after the notification of the parliamentary law which eclipsed the Visakha guidelines.

I reasserted that the claim of the GSCASH procedures are ultra vires and violative of the parliamentary Law, despite being certified by a committee of bureaucrats to be in conformity with the provisions of the parliamentary statute on sexual harassment, and hence all cases after December 13, 2013 ought to have been transferred to the local complaints committee till the constitution of an appropriate ICC as mandated by law.

I could see that this made the former chairperson of GSCASH uncomfortable, since instead of answering my unambiguous question logically, she launched a scathing attack on the "misogynist" and "patriarchal" JNU administration and its agents (referring to me), in a clear attempt at obfuscation.

Her reply was that eminent "practising lawyers of the supreme court" have assured that JNU as an "autonomous" institution can make its own rules and is not bound by the "bare minimum" prescriptive mandate of the law, but can exceed it in favour of gender justice.

Referring to my query as conspiratorial and designed to cause confusion, she questioned my political affiliations and motives for asking questions "that demeaned the long struggle for the autonomy of the GSCASH, its sound democratic principles, and its unassailable record of maintaining confidentiality while dispensing justice".

I deemed it better not to ask any more questions, since the aggression was palpable. However, this incident brings to the fore how emotionalism rather than respect for law has become the norm in JNU. Subsequent events prove that the real heckler of the GSCASH was the student I had encountered posting the posters against the GSCASH. Apparently, his incessant RTI applications to the JNU administration and the UGC regarding the non-notification of ICC had forced the JNU administration, known to be afflicted by bureaucratic inertia, to dissolve the GSCASH and notify the ICC.

This decision has taken strong political overtones, with the JNUTA and the JNUSU rejecting the authority of the ICC and demanding that the GSCASH be reinstated. The present chairperson of the GSCASH sat on a protest at the GSCASH office, and some students and teachers of the university have filed a writ at the Delhi high court, seeking dissolution of the ICC and the reinstatement of the GSCASH.

Elections have been conducted to both the ICC and the GSCASH and it is unclear as to which body will have the authority to deal with the cases of sexual harassment that arise in the meantime.

A copy of the pathetic notice issued by BJP-appointed JNU Administration to girls contesting election to anti sexual harassment cell GSCASH pic.twitter.com/bVJUJP9PeS

— Shehla Rashid (@Shehla_Rashid) September 26, 2017

Today New hope 4 JNU Students by forming ICC body(as per UGC norms) containing more students representation in compare to GSCASH pic.twitter.com/4QilAW06wy

— Dr.Buddha Singh (@BuddhaSinghJNU) September 18, 2017

The JNU administration gives the excuse that it is only following the law, while the GSCASH claims it has support of the student community and that matters in a democratic setup. The claim of the university's "autonomy" has been raised incessantly by the supporters of the GSCASH as an argument for its continuation.

Now that the writ petition is pending before the HC, it would be well if the court decided not only on whether the GSCASH or the ICC at JNU is legal, but also defined the contours of the university's autonomy and how far an "autonomous" institution is exempt from the application of the principles of administrative and mandatory statutory law.

It must also decide whether democratic bodies with politically elected representatives who sit as executive investigative officers and quasi-judicial decision makers in institutions that have powers of a civil court are legal, since the possibility exists of the institutions being susceptible to be used for vendetta against opponents by politicians elected to membership. The decision of the high court would decide the contours of prevention of sexual harassment at workplace in India. I hope that the culture of engagement with journalists does not become extinct in JNU. Recently, a former office bearer of JNUSU refused to talk to journalists of a particular channel, calling them names. I wonder if this boycott of journalists, projected as a political statement, is just a convenient means to escape inconvenient questions.

The role of the press in our democracy is crucial, and refusal to answer journalists and vilifying poor reporters to cover up inadequacies is an evasive measure. As far as I am concerned, dear friend Adachi Chakrabarti, this "heckler" will not back down from his journalistic duties just because an ideologue abuses him online. May the rule of law and rationality prevail.

Also read: You don't need a tank to win JNU battle