It's not you, it's us who need to stop taking Kanhaiya Kumar seriously

I write this piece not just as a journalist and commentator but also as a writer who has written two books in which the central macabre episodes were the anti-Sikh pogrom in 1984 and targeted violence in Gujarat in 2002 in which the state was complicit.

In all humbleness, I would like to qualify that I do not have the "final answer" on the extent to which we can fix institutional responsibility and culpability for the two gruesome chapters of mass violence. Like all responsible writers or commentators, I do not pretend to be presenting the most reflective critique of the two incidents. But I know that Kanhaiya Kumar's assertion carving out the distinctive nature of the two shameful occurrences and his later clarification that he was "misinterpreted and misrepresented" is grossly incorrect.

For more than a decade the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) traded charges on 1984 and 2002. The outrageous slugfest reminded me of the old iconic advertisement for Rin detergent powder (soap) - Bhala uski kameez meri kameez se safed kaise? Arguing that the phase of violence for which party "A" is responsible, is less horrific than the brutality over which party "B" presided, is just an attempt to shirk responsibility.

For almost the past decade and half, whenever BJP faced criticism - because the events and for disallowing speedy progress of investigations on the 2002 violence, its leaders shed copious amounts of crocodile tears over the plight of victims of 1984 and cited Congress culpability in the violence. The Congress too, played down the tardy progress of cases against its leaders in riot cases of 1984 but vilified BJP and Narendra Modi - Sonia Gandhi even infamously terming him "maut ka saudagar". But this article in not about either 1984 or 2002 and instead is about Kanhaiya Kumar, catapulted to fame overnight - proof of this being most evident in the fact that within a week of joining Twitter, he has 12,000-plus followers!

Unknown to the world outside Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) till he was wrongly picked up by Delhi police after the BJP leaders gave an indication to the police that the party was keen to escalate a campus issue into a national conflict, Kanhaiya and the politics he represents, does not have the bandwidth to become anything beyond a momentary rallying point. The more the PhD scholar expresses his views on every issue under the sun, the more will he risk the unity that has been forged among political forces inimical to the Sangh Parivar.

The outrage that followed police swoop on the campus and the arrest of Kanhaiya and other students' leaders was accompanied by a virulent ultra-nationalistic campaign mounted by all affiliates of the Sangh Parivar in unison with explicit state support.

Academicians, politicians, activists and professionals - including form the media - joined hands to protest blatant state and political terror which included the brutal assault on journalists in court premises, not once but twice. The anger which reverberated through various cities of the country and in several campuses was mainly against the BJP and government's promotion of vigilantism of the worst order in every sphere - in real world as well as the virtual world. The crowds that thronged JNU's open lectures did not do so because they endorsed the politics of the All India Students' Federation (AISF) or its parent party - CPI, but because the people wished to strengthen forces of free expression and reasoned debate.

On his release from Tihar Jail, Kanhaiya Kumar delivered a stirring speech and in him, opponents of the regime posited the status of a rare "symbol of victory" over the Parivar. But to consider that he can be the face of a united - and much wider - protest is an extremely myopic initiative.

The JNUSU president repeatedly stated that he had full faith in the Indian Constitution and that in his view, solution of every political problem could be found within the frameworks of the Constitution. His views on the Constitution will not be acceptable to even several members of his own students' union. This is nothing new in students' politics especially in politically conscious universities like JNU where campus politics has since its inception, debated issues much wider than local ones.

Elections in JNU, which produced leaders of all political shades - from CPI(M)'s Sitaram Yechury and Prakash Karat, DP Tripathi of NCP, the late Digvijay Singh who was with the Janata parivar, Nirmala Sitharaman of BJP and Ashok Tanwar, of the Congress party, former MP and many more. For much of its history, during students' union elections candidates debated issues ranging from Marxists dialectics to global conflicts. Ultra-left viewpoint on campuses too have been a long tradition in Indian universities and not everyone remained loyal to such revolutionary zeal after starting a professional life. Yet, the BJP not just targeted this section but also presented every adversary in a similar hue.

Comparing Kanhaiya Kumar to Bhagat Singh or for him to have an opinion on everything from Kashmir militancy to the nuanced difference between 1984 pogrom and the 2002 carnage is foolhardy. The JNUSU leader is what he is because of what he has come to represent - a victim of political high handedness of the state and ruling regime. To expect him to be followed as leader of the vanguard will only strengthen the Sangh Parivar and divide the opposition to it.

Any gain by democratic forces over the past several weeks will rapidly diminish. It is time to stop taking Kanhaiya Kumar very seriously and limit him to what he is - just a symbol. It must be recalled that leaders cannot be born overnight but need to spend years - if not decades - in public life before they command moral and political loyalty. The political battle against the Sangh Parivar requires mature shepherding.

The ABVP and other Sangh Parivar affiliates will not waste a single opportunity to attack Kanhaiya Kumar - as demonstrated when his earlier suspension and confrontation with a woman scholar was dug up. Is such a situation, making self-goals by making statements which divide your own forces, is best avoided. It must be kept in mind that in today's age of instant adulation, support in the virtual world is nothing but a mirage. Those who live by the headline also perish by it.

(The writer has authored Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984 and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times.)