Truth to tell by NIRMALYA DEB
Is student politics a contentious issue only because news of campus violence, destruction of infrastructure, picketing, etc hit the headlines every other day in the state and elsewhere in the country? Or, for that matter, is it an issue that calls for serious introspection only because news of incidents like students manhandling college principals and teachers, locking them up in their office rooms and bringing academic functioning to a standstill are disturbingly frequent? A large section – and this is, indeed, a very disturbing fact – of people in official and academic positions hold that students should have nothing to do with politics. Teachers, retired bureaucrats who write columns for newspapers, and distinguished academicians as well those associated with the overall management of educational institutes in the country, not to mention a large swathe of today’s civil society which also, of course, includes guardians and lawmakers, have a steadfast opinion that education, once it gets mired in politics, is soiled and students should instead inculcate discipline and self-control.
To adhere to such a view would be downright reactionary and despite the degeneration in student politics over the decades since independence it would be a grave error to let despair rule over democratic sense. Moreover, for a column like this one which has openly extolled the virtues of the sensible man who knows how and why to subvert authority and, if necessary, openly defy it for the sake of creative self-expression, it would be blasphemous even to lose hope in the sane democratic principles of student politics while not eulogizing students as charioteers of history and revolutionaries as some well-meaning yet indefatigable idealists have done.
The truly critical approach to students in general and the role of students in society would undoubtedly take into account their unruly ways and the inherent anomalies that flow from exercise of power even if in a small scale. That the student unions of respective colleges or universities have political affiliations is an issue integrally linked to the argument against them having any extra-academic functions. But the reason we denied that the sole objective of education and training was inculcating discipline and obedience (an administrative, militaristic way of thinking) instead of intellectual curiosity and spiritual freedom, was that we found it disgusting. The same is true of political affiliation. You are free to choose or dump any leader, party or ideology you feel like. Intellectually free students would align with forces conducive to progress which leaves space for critical scrutiny at every stage of action. The question of forcibly extracting allegiance ought not to, by any means, arise. But nobody could deny that student union goons in college after college rig the elections, resort to quite the most high-handed ways to augment membership, and have scant respect for teachers and other officials including the principal – they would catch hapless students sitting cheek-by-jowl in a corner by the collar and make them walk in rallies and shout slogans. These highly unwanted elements inflate the rank-and-file of most college unions in the country and naturally a vast majority of the academically inclined is uninterested in politics.
Seen this way the issue parallels the larger aversion of civil society to political parties and elections, especially in the upper middle-class localities; but that there is a trend in civil society that shrinks from politics certainly doesn’t negate the need for democratic engagement and practice to deal with a host of issues assailing the Indian political economy. Similarly, lumpenism is a feature of politics in general, and student politics is not dissociated from the mainstream in this regard, while reflecting as we have seen the waves blowing across the political landscape in many other respects. So, if faith in the larger democratic experiment – let’s put it this way – is unwavering that elections truly show, student politics have to be accorded space, but the corruption in student politics cannot be explained away, as corruption in statecraft generally, too, can’t be cured overnight. Therefore, the need for democracy need no longer be stressed in theory except in the most extreme of circumstances but the uses of democracy ought to be scrutinized. How you wield power collectively shared is the crux of the issue, not that you should have power to control the family, the local club, the college union, the local committee of the ruling party, the state unit of the party and so on up the ladder. Assertiveness, many would agree, have somewhat spoiled the rationality of democracy: the vulgar intensity of expression characteristic of so many leaders in today’s India has vilified overall political discourse which lacks sobriety, tolerance and reason.
If students have a role in shaping the future that role can only be played by rationally introspecting the uses and abuses of power. The fight for human rights, freedom of expression or economic equality can only be spearheaded by leaders with an insight into the mechanisms of social change and continuity; such leaders know when to press the accelerator of revolutionary action and when to place a toe softly on the brake to tarry for a while to interrogate action and purge the nation of excesses like abuse of power and corruption, vulgarity of expression and ideological intoxication even when it is speeding up the highway with a projected growth rate of 8 per cent.
Are today’s college union secretaries or presidents such leaders-in-the-making? The moth-eaten manifesto-wielding lot is passé – although whether we should be thankful for it depends on our estimate of the current crop that seems altogether hopeless, devoid of sense or moral purpose and drunk to the nose with power. These aberrations in the name of students – forget student leaders – play an instrumental role in filling up the Ramlila Maidan or the Brigade Parade Ground, manipulating elections and voter lists, and creating sporadic violence to disarm the opposition and the people into silence and submission for a short while and are also swift in surreptitiously shifting political allegiances. But they are what they are – aberrations that need to be set straight and for that introspection of action and scrutiny of the uses of power are essential.
Intellectuals since Plato have felt an aversion towards politics because of the infiltration of extremism, intolerance, mediocrity, vulgarity, meanness and worse into politics. However, the point is to change politics for the better by reversing action and investing it with purpose, by introspecting it continually and wielding power – which is nothing but acceptance and overall trust – wisely as a means for achieving social welfare. Only such a course of action could fulfill the demands and aspirations of the student community eager to lead the country.
