First person: When a Kashmiri met a Naga at JNU

I cannot imagine former British soldiers marching down the streets of London demanding the closure of Oxford University because the students organised a discussion on the Irish question. But Indian ex-servicemen organised a march from Rajghat to Jantar Mantar to condemn the Jawaharlal Nehru University for its anti-national activities under the banner “people for nation”. And a few days later, at a meeting organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the servicemen suggested that a tank should be placed in the university to remind the students and teachers about their commitment to the nation.

Why are students being pitted against soldiers? Why are some ex-service men calling for the closure of an educational institution which is known for its academic excellence and intellectual vibrancy?

Unique vision

It is important to remember this conflict over the definition of nationalism has a long history and JNU’s role in upholding democratic nationalism needs to be understood. Today many students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University visit the Parthasarthi Rock, the highest point in the campus, to enjoy solitude and the company of peacocks. It is here that a beautiful open air auditorium has been made and the students sit there without much thought to the person after whom the spot has been named.

But it is important to remember G Parthasarthi, the first Vice Chancellor of JNU (1969-1974). He contributed to the vision of the University becoming the first educational institution in the country to develop a multi-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary approach to knowledge.

For me G Parthasarthi was Uncle GP, my father’s friend. And I was privy to many discussions on the future vision of the university. I had just passed out of school and scored very high marks in Indian history. The reason for my achievement was that I had answered the questions based on my reading of typed manuscripts of new history books written by a new generation of nationalist historians including Nurul Hasan, Romila Thapar and Satish Chandra. I had the privilege of reading the books even before they were published because these historians were also family friends. Nurul Hasan brought the typescripts to my school when he came to give a lecture on history. He wanted to know how a young student would react to the books.

I found the books really exciting because they did not teach history only as a chronology of rulers but explained events in their political and economic context. They did not put the golden age of Indian history in the past but in the future where India would become a mature democracy with roots in a secular and pluralistic culture.

These books had been written at the instance of the National Council of Education, Research and training or the NCERT. The NCERT was established in 1961 as an autonomous body. However, it is government-funded and its director is appointed by the ministry of education, as it was called at that time, and acts as a semi-official organisation promoting a “State-sponsored” educational philosophy.

The then Minister of Education MC Chagla was concerned that the textbooks in history should not recite myths but be secular and rational explanations of the past. A committee on history education was established consisting of Tara Chand, Nilakanta Sashtri, Mohammad Habib, Bishweshar Prasad, among others. The committee commissioned a number of history textbooks to be authored by leading historians such as Romila Thapar, Ram Sharan Sharma, Satish Chandra and Bipan Chandra. These texts were intended to be “model” textbooks which were “modern and secular”, free of communal bias and prejudice.

A battle over history

After school I joined the Delhi University to study a newly introduced subject called sociology which was at the time taught only in the Delhi School of Economics. At that time the students union was dominated by the ABVP. These students targeted the new historians and wrecked the meetings addressed by them. I remember how they would not allow Irfan Habib, Bipan Chandra or Romila Thapar speak at public meetings and very few students dared to sit and listen to these young historians. The atmosphere in the campus was suffocating and there were few discussions and debates even within the classroom.

It was during those days that the All India Students Federation or AISF decided to seriously challenge the ABVP. They put up their candidate, Amarjeet Kaur against the ABVP candidate and we all joined the campaign whole heartedly. In Miranda House, the only college which had an independent union, the Students’ Federation of India or SFI put up its own candidates. Throughout the campaigns we were faced with very real threats of physical assaults but that did not deter us. And we were delirious with happiness when Amarjeet won.

Many students who studied Indian history from the new NCERT text books (which had been published by then) or books written by the nationalist historians found they had been failed in their BA exams. This was because the Jana Sangh and its sympathisers dominated the history departments and did not allow a historiography which taught the student to read their history critically, to understand the nature of the colonial state and the different trends within the freedom movement.

I too was failed in my history subsidiaries not once but twice. At the time the students could not get their answers re-checked. It was my first hand experience of the battle for control of Indian history and also for the soul of India. The failure in the subsidiaries meant I would get a simple BA degree and not an honours degree and my prospects of studying further had become bleak. I was left devastated but not defeated. I turned to journalism and my dream of studying in JNU was deferred. My history teacher, Uma Chakravartty could not believe that I could have failed because I had taken keener interest in history than even in the main subject. She persuaded me to take the exam yet once again later and I passed.

I worked in the Indian Express as a trainee journalist and then got an opportunity to work in London for the Time Educational Supplement in 1974. One day a colleague, Gavin asked me for lunch to the office canteen and in the course of conversation told me “Nan, we cannot keep giving you aid.” I was so insulted but I had not the means to answer the allegation.

Early days

It was this insult that prompted me to join the Centre for Historical Studies at the JNU on my return from London. I wanted to know my history and be able to answer such accusations. When I joined JNU, India was recovering from the horrors of the National Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. My father, PN Haksar who had been principal secretary to the prime minister and had known her personally since her days in Oxford had been a victim of the Emergency because he had dared to oppose her and her son, Sanjay Gandhi. But my father had taught us to react politically and not personally – a lesson which has stood the test of time.

The atmosphere in JNU was very exciting with the SFI conducting open discussions and debates. I listened to the discussions and learnt the political differences between the various leftist organisations, the SFI, the Trotskyites and the Naxals. And the leftists were challenged by the non-left group organised under the banner of Free Thinkers.

I also got my first lessons in democratic politics when I signed for the release of political prisoners which included members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I realised why it was important to protect the rights of my political rivals and the importance of defeating a rival ideology by debate and discussion.

Attempt to ban

I felt I was breathing fresh air after the stifling atmosphere created by the ABVP in Delhi University. But just after I had passed my MA there was another attempt to ban the history text books published by the NCERT. Three months into the Janata Party government headed by Morarji Desai the prime minister was given an anonymous memorandum, thought to have been written by Nanaji Deshmukh, former leader of the Jana Sangh and general secretary of the Janata party criticising the history books written by Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Amales Tripathi, Harbans Mukhia and RS Sharma.

As a student of Bipan Chandra I knew how passionately nationalist he was. He made the leaders of the freedom struggle come alive. I had begun to feel I knew each of them, Dadabhai Naoroji, Raja Rammohan Roy, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bhagat Singh. Romila’s classes had the quality of an ancient sage telling stories of wisdom, and Harbans Mukhia made medieval India seem like contemporary society. I truly loved the classes and each of my teachers. They had nurtured my pride in my country and sown the seeds of a lifelong passion for history. From now on no Gavin or anyone would be able to throw an insult to my nation and get away.

That is why I felt the ban on the history books based on an anonymous memorandum a real threat to a robust, critical thinking and understanding of Indian history.

The ban had to be fought in the open and I was among the students who organised a three day long debate on the academic merits of the books. We invited historians cutting across ideological lines and held the seminar in Delhi School of Economics auditorium. Students and teachers of five universities came together, JNU, Delhi University, Jamia Millia, Lucknow University and the Aligarh Muslim University. We ensured that there was no disruption when the historians loyal to the Jana Sangh spoke and we ensured that the ABVP did not disrupt our proceedings. We won our battle when the ban was lifted and the books became available again. Of course the Hindutva forces were not giving up and in 2002 when the National Democratic Alliance was in power they again tried to re-write history.

Beyond classrooms

As a student of JNU I learnt much more than what was taught in the class. It was a University which attracted students from every corner of the country. I met Adivasis from Jharkhand and learnt of their battle against displacement. It was a shock that the projects which I had been taught to think of as Temples of Modern India were the source of large scale destruction of tribal peoples living in Bihar, Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. When I decided to do my Masters essays on the Jharkhand movement we had heated discussions on whether we could call it Jharkhand nationalism or was it merely the tribal question.

I also met Naga students in JNU. In 1978 they were busy drafting a constitution for a Naga human rights organisation which they intended calling the Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights or NPMHR. At that point of time even to mention the Naga movement was considered anti-national. And, like most students, I too felt the Nagas were anti-national.

But then I discovered the kind of atrocities the Naga people had been subjected to under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act – acts which could not be justified in the name of Indian nationalism. After many months of discussions one of the Naga students, Luingam Luithui and I edited a book called Nagaland File: A Question of Human Rights (1986). It was the first book which put forward the Naga point of view.

Every review of the book condemned me as an anti-national. But the Naga students felt that it was the first time an Indian was willing to speak on their behalf. It was the beginning of a long, difficult process by which the Naga people began to think of calling India their home; and the book created democratic space for further discussions and finally the peace process.

The best part of my association with the JNU was that I found my life partner, a fellow student at the JNU – and a Naga. Together we dedicated our lives fighting for human rights.

In 1984 when the Sikhs were being massacred in the heart of the Indian capital I was among a few from our colony in Munirka Enclave who rescued the Sikh teachers from Guru Harkrishnan School. But many in our colony felt scared that the Sikhs were living in our colony and they felt I had endangered the colony residents. Without a thought I phoned a friend who was a teacher in JNU and asked whether she could accommodate the Sikhs at the university. And of course she did. The teachers and students of JNU provided safe haven for the Sikhs. The solidarity they experienced assuaged the hurt and pain they felt when they were attacked by their fellow citizens.

In 1989-90, I rescued Burmese students imprisoned in Imphal jail and brought them to Delhi to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR. Again, it was the JNU students and teachers who provided them with a safe harbour. And the Burmese students realised they had many Indian friends even though the Indian government had chosen to support the military junta instead of Daw Aung Saan Suu Kyi.

Extending a hand

It was this experience that had taught me that if we could extend our hand of friendship even those who felt alienated from the Indian nation could be won over. If only we could see our country from their point of view we would understand why they felt angry with us, and we could understand how we had wronged them. It was with this feeling I accepted to take the defence of SAR Geelani a young Kashmiri lecturer of Delhi University who was arrested on charges of conspiring to attack the Indian Parliament. And later I took up the campaign for computation of the death penalty of Afzal Guru to life imprisonment.

I wrote two books, Framing Geelani, Hanging Afzal: Patriotism in the time of Terror (2007) and, more recently, Many Faces of Kashmiri Nationalism: From the cold war to present times (2015) in which I attached an eight page letter from Afzal Guru to me. The idea was not to glorify him but to understand him. One of the things which I discovered was how far the Kashmiris were critical of Pakistan.

These books seek to understand the Kashmiris from their point of view and also try and build a bridge of understanding between Kashmir and the rest of India. It was a small, shaky bridge but people had started crossing it but the latest attack on JNU students for commemorating the death anniversary of Afzal Guru has broken the fragile bridge I had tried to make.

'Thank you JNU'

Just as the discussions with the Nagas were once termed as anti-national, any attempt to understand Kashmir is termed anti-national. I believe the Kashmiri students were beginning to feel that JNU could be a place from where a genuine peace process could be started.

In the past such an incident would have been dealt with by the university authorities themselves – and that is exactly what should have been done. But there were obviously more sinister designs at work. How do we explain why a video has been doctored to frame a Dalit student – showing him as shouting anti-India slogans when he was actually calling for freedom from poverty, caste system and freedom from famines? Why would a Muslim student be portrayed as a terrorist on the basis of a parody twitter account? Why has the government allowed the police, the media to turn the campus and indeed the entire country into a battleground in which the image of JNU is sought to be tarnished and the institution destroyed?

How can lawyers attack students and teachers of JNU in the presence of the police? How can lawyers physically assault journalists, including women reporters, inside a court room? How can the media broadcast doctored videos and how can the police claim that the students shouted pro-Pakistan slogans when the 12-page report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) on the facts leading to filing of FIR No 110.16 dated 11.02.2016 lists 29 slogans shouted at the meeting but does not mention “Pakistan Zindabad”?

But students all over the country have come out in solidarity with the students of JNU. The students of Srinagar University took out processions carrying placards saying “Thank you JNU” and intellectuals from all over the world have expressed their concern over the way the JNU is being attacked.

Perhaps the best reflection of JNU’s intellectual strength is that three of the ABVP activists who are students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University resigned from ABVP after they saw the way their fellow students were being framed in false cases and hounded by the police.

The three students, Pradeep Nawal, joint secretary of the ABVP (JNU unit), Rahul Yadav, president of the ABVP unit of the School of Social Sciences and its secretary Ankit Hans said they had resigned because of the current JNU incident, and the longstanding differences of opinion with the party on the Manusmriti and the Rohith Vemula incident.

The country is divided between those who think of Indian nationalism as a mighty river with many tributaries, which flows and carries the waters of hundreds of streams, and those whose nationalism is like an ancient stagnant pool.

I believe Jawaharlal Nehru University has always stood for a truly democratic, diverse and vibrant India. The students of JNU have been rebels and this rebellion has kept alive the spirit of India. The institution should be celebrated and defended with our hearts, minds, body and soul.