‘That is knowledge which liberates’,
proudly proclaims the crest of University of Hyderabad, a prominent
central university in our country. A University space has been
traditionally seen as the vanguard of socio-cultural critique and
change. Universities pride themselves in upholding the values of freedom
of thought, expression and debate. And yet, the reaction of the
administration of the University of Hyderabad (UoH) to a recent event,
in an otherwise liberal-tolerant and progressive-leaning campus, leaves
much space for thought.
On November 2nd, a group of students
organised an event on campus in solidarity with the much discussed “Kiss
of Love” protest in Kerala. Titled “UoH Against Moral Policing”, the
on-campus event, publicised solely on online social media, was supposed
to create a space to discuss issues surrounding moral policing and the
chain of Kerala incidents, bring out narratives of moral policing, talk
about morality and Indian culture, and recite poetry. Also planned was a
symbolic act of kissing on a chart paper, with the slogan “Our lips
don’t char”. However, some ABVP and BJYM activists, with the aim of
saving the students and the Indian culture from Western “immorality”,
barged into campus and tried to attack the student protesters. The
Telangana Police and campus security, who had failed to stop the
intruders, did later succeed in cordoning them off from the protesting
crowd, while insisting that the students call off the protest and
disperse.
Unaccustomed to Police chauvinism and
empowered enough to insist on their rights, the students managed to
continue with their planned activities, although once in a while some
right-wing activists managed to break ranks and tried to incite
violence. The campus community however showed great restraint and
continued protesting peacefully. In response to such moral policing
inside campus, the 250-plus students spontaneously started hugging and
kissing each other, before dispersing.
One would imagine that the university –
concerned about the breach of security and intruders trying to dictate
morals to the campus community – might order an investigation. Instead,
the very next day, the Registrar and Pro-VC, egged on by an
over-enthusiastic Circle Inspector of Police, filed a case against its
own students for organising an event without permission, and for
indulging in the obscene act of “public kissing”. This led to a protest
outside the Pro-VC’s chamber, where the Pro-VC and Registrar refused to
withdraw the complaint. However after 14 hours of continuous protest by
students, the administration agreed to revise the complaint.
Two weeks later, the saga continues.
Following a complaint filed by an outside group against the University
for holding the event, the University reverted by filing a complaint
against the intruders. Meanwhile, the Police have been going through
media footages to identify and charge students for obscenity under IPC
Section 294(a). The Police complaint by the university has been revised.
A section of the faculty, outraged at such a curtailing of free
expression, have been voicing their dissent as well. This probably led
to a softening of the administration’s stance, who later assured that
they will not let students be prosecuted for protesting. Yet, despite
the numerous meetings and dissent notes submitted by students and
faculty, the complaint filed by the University still has not been
withdrawn. An Internal Enquiry Committee has been constituted, but
sources inform that their mandate is skewed in favour of penalising
students for protesting.
There are a few threads that are
especially phosphorescent in this chain of events. One is of course the
university’s attitude. Second would be the Police’s proactivism. Third
would be the right to protest. Fourth, and very importantly, other
narratives which should have been more in the highlight, but now lost in
the tangle, like the form of protest.
It is only expected that in a nation struggling with post-coloniality, someone takes up the defensive flag of Bharatiya sanskriti. Such a group feel would also be immensely threatened by such rampant breaches of Bharaitya sanskriti
like kissing in public, and march against an event in support of such
acts. However, what was unexpected was the UoH administration’s stand.
The administration turned out to be empathetic to the insecure sanskriti
defenders; especially when such a stand was dictated by the Pro-VC and
the Registrar, who happen to be professors of Sociology and Political
Science (respectively).
Much has been said and discussed about
what indeed is the so called “Indian culture” and who are the bearers of
Indian culture. As a legitimate citizen of India each individual is the
bearer of the Indian culture. Through the actions of each individual
then, Indian culture gets redefined and reproduced iteratively. There is
no one single, linear and all-encompassing definition of Indian
culture. The pseudo-bearers of Indian culture have again and again
threatened the democratic structure of Indian society to hijack ‘Indian
culture’ and normatively frame it after their own interests. (It is
ironic that in this case, the so called defenders of ‘Indian culture’
use IPC section 294(a), drafted by Lord Macaulay and informed by
Victorian morality, to defend Bharaitya sanskriti).
One would expect an academic space,
especially a university, to be very familiar with these notions. And one
would expect such academic spaces to spearhead the cause for
rationality and liberality. But when the university administration fails
to protect this space and becomes a mute complying spectator, one is
lead to wonder if these undemocratic moves are not of the officials own
volition.
The Telangana Police have been active
participants in the chain of events. They appeared on campus learning
about the “sensitive” nature of the event, and asked the students to
disperse. After much debate, they let the event proceed but told the
students not to “invite trouble by kissing”, threatening to “show the
real face of Police” if the students did not “behave”. They did not
remove the trespassers, even a woman activist who tried to physically
assault students. The first complaint against the students was drafted
in the presence of the Police, and did not mention the trespassers or
their attempted violence. Later, they were present with the Pro-VC and
Registrar in a meeting with students. They continuously threatened the
students saying they had video evidence of them kissing. Terming it
indecent, they clubbed kissing along with alcohol and drug abuse. The
Inspector even made a statement that the recent EFLU gangrape was a
result of “over liberty” given to students. Students, taking offence on
this statement, questioned the university officials if they agreed to
the Inspector’s statement, to which they meekly nodded.
Sources inform that the Police have
continued to identify students using sensationalised media visuals to
charge them under IPC Section 294(a):
- Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others—(a) does any obscene act in any public place
It is interesting to note here that no
one has explicitly expressed “annoyance”. It is also to be questioned
whether a space in a private gated community is a public place to people
from outside the community. The university administration, as an
abstract entity, cannot be a “witness” to the event and take annoyance.
Moreover, the Delhi High Court in a 2009 ruling, and the Supreme Court
in the famous Shilpa Shetty – Richard Gere case, had ruled that kissing
in public spaces in not obscene. Have not the Police been reading their
newspapers? And what is the Police to uphold, the morality imposed by
the pseudo-bearers of “Indian culture” or the constitutional morality?
The University complaint against the
students, even the revised version, accuse the students of “public
kissing” and organising an event without permission. These are also
prominent points in the mandate given to the Internal Enquiry Committee.
Interestingly, being a highly politically empowered campus, several
events and protests are organised almost every day. Most of these event
organizers do not even inform the university administration of their
being organised, let alone take permission. Nowhere in the publicly
accessible university rules and code of conduct are peaceful
non-disruptive student events or protests not allowed. Nor does it say
that the administration has to be informed, or permission taken. Indeed,
to take permission to protest would be to undermine the very notion of
protest.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
empowers each Indian citizen with the right to free speech and
expression, and to assemble peacefully. To protest is to express
dissent, which is a form of free speech and expression. Understanding
the reformative socio-political prowess of a University space, the UGC
Student Entitlements, which every college and university in our country
has to abide by, state that “the college/university must allow space for
free exchange of ideas and public debate so as to foster a culture of
critical reasoning and questioning”. And that the university should “not
impose unreasonable, partisan or arbitrary restrictions on organizing
seminars,lecture and debates that do not otherwise violate any law”. In
the spirit of these rights and laws, one can see that the university’s
complaint is vacuous. One is led, again, to wonder what lies beneath the
university’s attempt to deny the students a fundamental right.
What the organisers of the event can be
happy about is that they have initiated a vibrant discourse on campus.
On one side of the spectrum is the outrage against the encroachment of
the freedom of protest. On another side are alternate narratives and
readings of the wider chain of events and the form of protest. “Kiss of
Love” have been criticised as reducing important communal and religious
questions to an issue of moral policing. Organisations taking the caste
struggle forward have critiqued it as an elitist and exclusive protest.
Their arguments are to be taken seriously. One cannot disentangle moral
policing, or notions of morality, in India from caste-class structures.
Several events have stemmed out of the November 2nd incident, including
academic discussions, poetry jams, protests, and of course, most
importantly, heated over-the-chai engagements.
The point of the protest was lost in all
the media sensationalization. A locking of lips, or an embrace, is the
site of protest, of dissent, of expression. And not for obscenity or
voyeuristic titillation. The greater cause was not the freedom to kiss,
but the freedom to be whoever one wants to be and still be a bearer of
Indian culture. A cause that has emerged en route is the freedom of
expression.
One wonders if the reason for the
university’s undemocratic and benighted stand is due to what it reads
off the media. This is possibly a naïve thought, but if it is indeed
true, then it needs to wake up. A university is charged with being the
knowledge capital of a society. It is a space which social and political
decision makers turn to for authentic and reasoned counsel. It is a
space for constant review and questioning of our social practices and
culture. It is a space where innovation and social changes are nurtured.
It needs to be a space which allows its community to dare to question
irrational belief. It needs to be a space where critical initiatives are
fostered, guided by academic discourse. It needs to be a space which
ensures, and does not require protests for, students’ basic rights.
In recent months universities in our
country have been cracking down on their students. EFLU, Jadavpur
University, and Visva Bharati have witnessed more drastic incidents than
UoH. The Police is an external agent, insensitive to the
socio-political dynamics of a varsity. Campuses need to evolve, and
defend, own mechanisms for discipline based on liberal and progressive
attitudes. It is only thus that changes in our society lead by students
or academic communities be incubated, and allowed to reform our nation.
Anu K Antony, Mohan K Pillai, Sinjini Bhattacharya and Vaikhari Aryat are research students at the University of Hyderabad.
No comments:
Post a Comment