In 2003, Sojan Francis, a 19-year-old undergraduate student of St. Thomas College, Pala, Kottayam, also an activist of the Students Federation of India (SFI), approached the Kerala High Court against the college management after he was denied permission to write the annual examinations citing attendance shortage. While dismissing the plea, the court banned political activism on the campus and declared that “students are forbidden to organise or attend meetings other than the official ones.”
The scenario on Kerala campuses, already undergoing changes with the advent of market-based economic policies and the emergence of self-financing colleges, was disrupted forever.
Over 14 years later, while hearing a contempt of court case against the police filed by the principal of MES College, Ponnani, Malappuram, a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh said, “Anyone indulging in political activities in educational institutions would make himself liable to be expelled or rusticated.”
The case pertained to the police’s failure to ensure protection to the institution.
Final word
The final word on the case is still not out, but nobody has any doubt that it will have a binding on the campus life of future generations. Though there had been court orders on the issue on various occasions, none had been as widely discussed as the above two. With the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government reportedly mulling options to bypass the court order, opinion seems divided over the legitimacy of allowing political activism in colleges.
Rajan Gurukkal, former Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University, and eminent historian, says the prohibition of campus politics will only turn counterproductive for the youth.
Public spheres
“Colleges and universities are the public spheres in society from where enterprising youngsters emerge. They are supposed to influence public policies in the future. If political activism is banned there what kind of social and political orientation such students will have,” he asks.
After campus politics was banned in 2003, a lot of apolitical gangs, which often engaged in anti-social activities and addicted to drugs and other things, had emerged in colleges.
“When student activism is allowed on campuses, you have political gangs there. There may be aberrations here and there, but the organisational structure will prevent them to a great extent. No one seems to have any control over the current bunch of apolitical groups,” he pointed out.
Dr. Gurukkal said there was a certain amount of ‘military discipline’ gaining ground on apolitical campuses in accordance with the current phase of capitalistic expansion.
The students coming out from such campuses would behave like robots without any human or social interaction and no social consciousness.
“Society will become an assortment of individuals who leave their daily needs to the whims and fancies of the market. There will not be any collective conscience. That cannot be called a society, it is just a crowd of people,” said Dr. Gurukkal.
Sibichen M. Thomas, Principal, St. Joseph’s College, Devagiri, Kozhikode, however, does not see any need for a political organisation on campuses.
“Educational institutions like colleges and universities already have a mechanism to address the problems of students.
The problem is that because of the involvement of political activists, they are not able to function properly.”
Claiming that the presence of student politics would affect the academic activities, Mr. Thomas alleged that precious working days were lost due to student strikes and other activities.
“According to the University Grants Commission (UGC), every college should have at least 90 working days in a semester. Many colleges, where politics is allowed, are just managing 30 or above now.”
Nitheesh Narayanan, central executive committee member, SFI, and a student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, begs to differ.
“Reports of worst forms of ragging, violence and torture by managements are reported from colleges in places like Bengaluru and Coimbatore which don’t allow organisational activities. The Constitution has guaranteed us the right to organise. How can they deny that fundamental right?”
The SFI leader alleged that anarchist and anti-social elements would be the first to benefit from the stand against politics. He claimed that it was the activities of student organisations which curbed the menace of ragging and diverted students’ attention from substance abuse to a creative and culturally enriched academic life.
Legal system
Dismissing the argument, Mr. Thomas said political activists never had any role in curbing such tendencies.
“We have a proper legal system and a mechanism to address those issues.
The students should not depend on political activists if they have any complaint or problem. They should take it up with the college authorities,” he added.
Mr. Narayanan, however, said that private college managements and other market-oriented forces would only justify their anti-political rhetoric as the court order would ultimately help their business and other interests.
The government should bring in a law to allow organisational activities on campuses, he said.
K.M. Abhijith, president, Kerala Students Union, echoed similar sentiments, but put the blame on the SFI’s ‘violent politics’ for the current perceptions against politics.
“Every one knows that communal, casteist and anarchic elements are intruding into campuses where there is no political activity.
We are launching a campaign across colleges in the State to sensitise students about the issue.
The violence perpetuated by the SFI against political rivals too will be highlighted,” he said.
Anti-democratic
When the High Court gave its verdict in Sojan Francis case, V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Law Minister and Supreme Court judge, wrote, “To banish politics for an 18-year-old student is to deny him the fundamental opportunity of becoming a good citizen to vote. It is anti-democratic to refuse a student the opportunity to talk politics, to read politics, to discuss politics in an association, to argue politics with his fellow students, subject, of course, to a peaceful atmosphere, disciplined behaviour and obedience to public health and morality.”
With the court yet to give its final verdict in the case, it remains to be seen how the government would address the emerging situation.