Jawaharlal Nehru University

Jawaharlal Nehru University was established in 1969 by an act of parliament. It was named after Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister. G. Parthsarthi  was the first vice chancellor . Prof. Moonis  Raza  was the Founder Chairman and  Rector The bill for the establishment of Jawaharlal Nehru University was placed in the Rajya Sabha on September 1, 1965 by the then minister of education. M.C chagala During the discussion that followed, Bhushan Gupta, member of parliament, voiced the opinion that this should not be yet another university. New faculties should be created, including scientific socialism, and one thing that this university should ensure was to keep noble ideas in mind and provide accessibility to students from weaker sections of society. The JNU Bill was passed in Loksabha on 16 November 1966 and the JNU Act came into force on 22 April 1969.

A recent example was a discussion on capital punishment where a handful of students gathered on the JNU campus to discuss it. Obviously the names of those recently given this punishment cropped up in the discussion, and very soon this became the dominant political aspect and the sole consideration, setting aside all other questions. Slogans took over in a confused fashion as happens in such situations and the serious issue of capital punishment was lost. Capital punishment is not just an issue of concern to nationalism alone. It involves aspects of ethics, moralities, religions as well as the context of the punishment, and it is not in the least bit surprising that opinions differ on all these issues. The logical follow-up could have been a more extended discussion of the subject, from other variant perspectives, rather than the insistence by some of those present that this was an anti-national issue, and their then proceeding to have the government intervene and clamp down on it.

As has been said by almost everyone who has written on this event, the terms that the government uses in its charges against the JNU students are problematic and cannot be bandied about in a casual way. Charges of sedition, extremely serious as they are, nevertheless are slapped on anyone for virtually any critical opinion about the country. Even the dictionary meaning of sedition is, incitement to violence and the overthrow of the state/government. As others have pointed out there is a considerable difference between advocacy of violent methods and actual incitement to violence. But such distinctions seem to be  beyond the comprehension of most politicians. To maintain that a statement made about the possibility of a segment of the Indian nation breaking away is sedition, shows neither an understanding of the word nor knowledge of the historical occasions in the last half century when such statements were made with reference to other parts of India. This is not the first time that Kashmir has been mentioned as part of such a suggestion. There have been earlier threats of secession from other parts of the nation, such as Nagaland and Tamil Nadu, and the intention of establishing the Sikh state of Khalistan to mention just a few. Some others are not completely silent even in present times.  Threats of secession are in part the way in which nationalisms play out in nations that extend over large territories and multiple cultures. It has to be understood as a process of change and debated rather than being silenced by calling it sedition.