Not just students: JNU panel also indicts administration and security for not preventing Afzal event

Was it just the fault of the students who organised the controversial February 9 event on Jawharlal Nehru University campus to discuss Afzal Guru's execution and the right of Kashmiri citizens to "self-determination"?

In its report on the event, that landed at least three students in jail so far on charges of sedition for raising "divisive slogans", JNU's high-level committee has said that the event could have been anticipated and prevented.

The high-level enquiry committee has indicted “masked outsiders” for chanting “objectionable slogans" even as it charged Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya and other organisers for allowing outsiders to take over the event.

However, the committee also mentions, albeit less prominently, the security and administrative lapses that led to the event in the first place.

The report, accessed by Scroll, doesn’t name Kanhaiya Kumar among those who were seen chanting the slogans, even though it takes note of his presence in the procession once it reached Ganga Dhaba around 8 pm that evening. Kumar spent close to three weeks in police custody on charges of sedition before he got bail.

Meanwhile, two of the organisers of the event, Khalid and Bhattacharya, who continue to be in jail,have been charged for “not completing the process of seeking approval” for the event.

This is not all.

Permission withdrawn over SMS

Even as the committee took note of the events of February 9, it acknowledged the presence of at least two policemen on the campus in civilian attire that evening, and blamed the authorities for not following due process in first registering and then cancelling the event, which could have led to confusion among students.

It takes note of a meeting which took place at 4.15 pm, right before the event where permission for it was the subject of discussion among the Vice Chancellor Jagadeesh Kumar, the registrar, the chief proctor and the dean of students.

The dean is supposed to have said that he did not remember giving permission for the event. And it was thus formalised in this meeting that permission, if any claimed, for the event shall be considered withdrawn on the grounds of not complying with due procedure and also "misleading" authorities about the nature of the event

Promptly, the security then removed the posters and the sound system from the venue even as the committee sent the JNU Security Inspector Amarjeet Kumar to inform Umar Khalid of the revocation of permission. Khalid is said to have reacted by saying that “they will go ahead with the programme at Sabarmati Dhaba and the security can do whatever it wants,” states the report.

While blaming the students for not providing complete information about themselves and the nature of the event, the report also claimed that no information was readily available in the dean’s office about the event and the way it was struck down could have been better.

“Since the process of taking permission was not completed, there was confusion at the level of the DOS [dean of students], on whether the permission had been granted or not,” the report said.

“The DOS should have withdrawn the permission (if any) in writing and not by sending only an SMS to the Chief Security Officer.”

Security didn’t do its job

In further indictment of the campus security officers and the dean’s office, the report took note of the fact that the dean was not present on the campus during the event and that the security didn’t take enough steps to prevent outsiders from leaving the campus even though the police was called in midway through the event on the basis of complaints by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad members on the campus.

It states:

• Since the process of seeking approval was never completed, the booking form did not reach the Chief Security Officer. Therefore, the CSO did not know about the event.
• Knowing the sensitivity of this particular event (it took place last year as well – confirmed with files available with the Chief Proctor’s office), it has come to light that the dean of students was not present on campus during the event, although he was in touch over the phone with CSO.
• Since the process of taking permission was not completed, there was confusion at the level of the dean of students on whether the permission had been granted or not.
• It has to be noted that since the event took place last year as well (see chief proctor File No 605) the security was not alert and vigilant to spot these posters about the event, till after the CSO met the authorities.
• It is to be noted that since the event had taken place in 2015 as well, DOS office was not vigilant enough to anticipate and prevent this event.
• Security did not make any efforts to stop the outsiders from shouting provocative slogans and also made no effort to prevent them from leaving the campus.

JNUSU didn’t act with due responsibility

The committee went on to lambast the office bearers of the students’ union for not acting in due time to prevent or control the happenings at the event. Not excluding the sole ABVP member who protested against this event, the committee took all four office bearers of JNUSU to task and said they should have been more responsible in their conduct.

In its recommendations for disciplinary action for those found in violation of the university rules, it said the following:

• It is most unfortunate that the organisers allowed the event to be taken over by a group of outsider who created a charged atmosphere by raising provocative slogans.
• The committee also notes that none of the JNUSU office bearers acted with due responsibility. The office bearers had to behave with even more restraint and caution befitting the position that they hold.
• They need to rise above politics and other differences as they represent the student community of the University and this point needs to be reiterated here that their conduct should be exemplary.
• It is unbecoming of student representatives that they should be found engaging in disorderly conduct or condoning it.