dailyO
Politics

Why JNU's mock 'public trial' of vice-chancellor Jagadesh Kumar was a flop show

Advertisement
Makarand R Paranjape
Makarand R ParanjapeNov 01, 2017 | 10:35

Why JNU's mock 'public trial' of vice-chancellor Jagadesh Kumar was a flop show

When the five-day “public inquiry” — or should I say “public inequity” — against the JNU vice-chancellor concluded on October 28, I was on my way to Bangalore Literature Festival (BLF) 2017. As an invited speaker at the well attended weekend event, I wondered how bad the fallout of the mock trial by the kangaroo court instituted by JNU Teachers Association would be. Frankly, I didn’t expect anything good to come out of it; the question was how much damage it would do.

Advertisement

Concern

The reason for my concern was that the BLF had scheduled a concluding plenary panel discussion on “Nationalism, Populism, and the Threat to the Global Liberal Order”. Not only was I a speaker, but some noted Left-liberals of whom the most popular seemed to be Kanhaiya Kumar, former JNU Students Union president, were also on the same panel. The latter himself had faced disciplinary, not to mention sedition, charges. I thought he might raise the daily “verdicts” at our latest public tamasha to further malign the “establishment”.

Though he did rail, in his usual fashion, against the Modi sarkar, perhaps after the court’s warnings, he was not overly provocative. But there was no mention whatsoever of the kangaroo court or its daily diversions. Indeed, throughout my time at BLF, where I had so many conversations with all kinds of interlocutors of every political stripe, I was never once asked about the JNUTA trial. The “hot” topic, instead, was the Raya Sarkar list, on which the feminists who were present were quite divided.

Speaking of kangaroo courts, there’s some debate on the origin of the phrase. Some claim that it goes back to the California Gold Rush, first appearing in print in 1853. Improperly constituted, often mob-appointed, such courts were not expected to deliver justice. Instead, they would arrive at conclusions by “jumping over”, like Kangaroos, all kinds of uncomfortable questions or evidence to arrive at what was often a preordained verdict. That’s why I think the JNUTA-sponsored “Jan Adalat” was less a kangaroo court than a “show trial.”

Advertisement

Show trials, as the Oxford English Dictionary states are “retributive” rather than “corrective”. Their main purpose is propaganda. They are an especially dear device of communists, as witnessed by the horrors perpetrated by Stalin and Mao in the 20th century. In China alone an estimated two million people, many branded as “landlords”, were executed for being “counterrevolutionaries” after such summary show trials.

As recently as 2009, Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner, was subjected to a show trial. Of course, such trials have also been held in Nazi Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and more recently in Turkey and Egypt with devastating, sometimes murderous, effect.

jagdesh-copy_110117103044.jpg
JNU vice-chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar. [Photo: Twitter]

Farce

The JNUTA show trial was much more of a farce in comparison. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, IIT-Delhi Professor of Electrical Engineering and JNU V-C, has been the target of the organised Left and its unorganised supporters, ever since he joined duty in January 2016. Less than two years after his appointment, his detractors mounted this mock trial against him.

But, as the opposition has realised to its dismay, he is a tough nut to crack. Behind his modest and gracious demeanour is a man with steely determination. I am convinced that Kumar has done more to reform JNU than possibly any other previous vice-chancellor. It is highly improbable that he — or his administration — will let this event deter him from his goals.

Advertisement

Legality

Rather, it must be clearly underscored that the JNUTA’s move itself does not enjoy the support of many faculty members. Usually, no voting is conducted before reaching such far-reaching decisions. Thus, many dissenters cannot effectively record their disagreements or refusal to participate. Instead, there’s often some sort of orchestrated assent, with members streaming out of the hall after supposedly supporting such calls to target the administration.

JNUTA, in other words, itself needs to be questioned on the legitimacy of such a “show trial”. Under what provision of its constitution did it carry it out? Moreover, what part of the JNU statutes and ordinances authorises it to conduct it? Who decided on the procedures of the “hearings” or the appointment of the members of the “jury”? Finally, what legality do such “verdicts” enjoy?

We don’t have to be trained lawyers, constitutional experts, or even university administrators to understand that such mock trials have at best only a populist or performative value. Last year’s “nationalism” lecturers were widely attended with quasi-academic, some would say real intellectual merit.

The JNUTA Jan Adalat, in contrast, was neither supported enthusiastically on campus. It hardly generated any media interest either, despite live broadcasts by some expected channels. Outside of JNU, there were hardly any repercussions. Certainly not in Bangalore, where no one cared enough even to ask what it was about. In the end, the show trial was mostly a flop show.

(Courtesy of Mail Today.)

Last updated: November 01, 2017 | 16:08
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy