Decoding the signals sent out by the actions against the JNU students

Subir Roy

The impasse at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) continues with classes mostly not being held for over two weeks. The administration has also been at a standstill, creating a crisis for those who need, say, a marksheet to move on.

The students are protesting a proposed three-fold hike in hostel charges which have not been raised for long. The hike may eventually turn out to be more as a new Rs 1,700 service charge has been indicated as approximate. Plus, electricity and water charges have now to be paid, but it is not known how much they will amount to. Over and above all this, tuition fees have not been addressed; but come January, there is a strong possibility that it will also be raised.

The whole issue is back in the melting pot as the government has appointed a committee to go into the hikes in view of the students’ protests. A view on the fairness of the hike or the protests against it can only be taken once the exact amount of the hike is known.

Meanwhile public attention has shifted to the way the police have dealt with the students’ attempt to take a procession to the vicinity of Parliament as it began its winter session to draw MPs’ attention to their cause. The students did not set out to attack the police but many have been injured by police action. Worse, to disperse a few of the students who remained squatting in Delhi’s Jor Bagh area, the police switched off the street lights after sundown and beat them away.

Two issues are at stake. One, public subsidy or support for higher education. Two, the ruling BJP’s view of such subsidy. There can also be a third issue — a hidden agenda behind the government’s action.

Government support for higher education is really an ideological issue. Some believe that all those who have the intellectual ability to pursue higher education should be able to do so irrespective of whether they can pay for it or not. This rests on the premise that democracy is all about equal opportunity for all irrespective of their own means. Universal adult franchise is not predicated on any kind of ability to pay. Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher tried to levy a poll tax to bring means into the picture but did not succeed.

JNU was conceived as an apex centre of learning focused more on the liberal arts (these disciplines do not equip you to earn high private incomes) in the heyday of Indian socialism under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and there was no question of keeping a deserving student out because she could not pay for her higher education.

Internationally, in most developed countries (notably Northern Europe and Japan) the State supports higher education. The United States has a mixed system. There are private universities, state universities funded by state governments and ‘not for profit’ institutions with generous endowments able to support students. The Asian Tigers have all promoted skills development while pursuing rapid economic growth. Developing and emerging economies necessarily support talented young people to meet the cost of their higher education.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) commitment to supporting higher education is far less than what was the case with previous governments. While not totally opposed to any kind of State support, it would like private means to play a far greater role in the pursuit of higher education. In particular, it is not very enamoured of the idea of pursuing higher studies in liberal arts with State support.

Its position is closer to that of Anglo-American conservatives who see those with liberal arts degrees as being able to create little value. The BJP and its supporters also do not see much sense in the pursuit of fundamental research in the social sciences and would like State-supported research institutions to increasingly seek out private sponsors and funding.

The present dispensation’s mindset is that young people tend to hang on in liberal arts streams with State-support for longer than it is useful to society. The middle class, in particular, can pay a lot more than it does in the case of students of central universities such as JNU. These sections point to how the middle class pays a high price for their children’s admission and education in reputed private schools. Why should higher education for such students be heavily subsidised by the State?

There also seems to be another possible agenda on the part of the ruling sections. They see central universities to be concentrations of leftist opinion, which is anathema to their beliefs. State subsidy for those pursuing liberal arts studies in them — and JNU is principally a centre for liberal arts studies — amounts to nurturing those intrinsically-opposed to their belief systems.

So an outwardly neutral agenda that can be taken up is to look more closely at the level of subsidy being paid to run the institutions. An unexceptionable way of tightening hitherto loose purse strings is to raise fees and charges, particularly when they have not been touched for a long time. The logic appears to be: We will not fund the studies of youngsters whose orientation goes against the grain of our beliefs.

One indication of a covert hostile mindset is the way the police used force to prevent the students from getting near Parliament House. The police acted by enforcing prohibitory orders issued prior to the delivery of the Ayodhya verdict, when that verdict is long delivered and there has been no violent reaction to it. It would not be surprising if the police perceived a signal that they won’t have to answer for taking disproportionately tough action against agitating JNU students.

Subir Roy is a senior journalist and author. The views expressed are personal.