Let me begin by stating that the focus of this article is not to examine or critique the January 9 Facebook post of Shehla Rashid either through a theological or a legal lens. Enough has been written on that and it would not make much sense to add another article to it.

This article is a response to the various responses that have emerged following the event, especially to those who identify themselves on the Left-Liberal political spectrum. Therefore, this is a response to responses and aims at providing one of the many possible normative outlines that could be followed in the aftermath of this incident.

Nadim Asrar, former AMUSU President explained in his article published in DailyO on February 20, “Far from being an isolated hounding of a Muslim woman studying in another university, it actually fits into a long trope of myopia, misogyny and mindset that defines not only AMU, but even the average Muslim man”. The entire narrative of Asrar’s article is underpinned by a binary of AMU’s politics which he defines as a hub of regressive, outdated politics against JNU, which is an utopia of students’ politics that all campuses must aspire to.

I would like to respond to the charges of myopia and misogyny defining AMU politics by highlighting some recent developments in AMU. I highlight them not to portray some imaginary picture of AMU using populist rhetoric, rather to bring out the fact that unlike what Asrar presumes, AMU too, like other campuses of India, is going through a phase where political battles are being fought both within and outside the campus.

After immense lobbying and pressure building by students, AMU today has a strong Committee Against Sexual Harassment and for Gender Sensitisation (CASHFGS) that is in tune with the Supreme Court Guidelines following the Vishakha judgement. This again is not to suggest that the mere formation of a Gender Sensitisation Committee ensures gender justice, but the transformation from a phase where AMU had a virtually toothless gender justice committee which was headed by people who had charges of sexual harassment against them, to the one AMU has currently, is no mean feat and it has only been possible because of AMU students’ concerns towards the same.

In the last one year, AMU campus has seen some unprecedented moments in terms of assertion of female students for their rights. Last July as the AMU administration brought out notifications for Ph.d admissions and sought to stop Ph.d funding in the fourth year of a student’s PH.d, research scholars came out in huge numbers to protest against these guidelines. It was during this time that the female research scholars, braving harassment and intimidation of their residential hall authorities stood side by side with their male counterparts in blocking the Bab-e-Syed; the main gate of the University campus.

Last October as the University was celebrating the Founder’s Day, students of Indira Gandhi Hall, the residential hall that houses the postgraduate female students of the University, rose in rage against the Hall Provost for her highhandedness, corruption and indulgence in character assassination of the hall members. Asrar being an alumnus of the University would certainly be aware of the way the authorities of women halls of residence deal with their resident members where intimidation and character assassination are commonplace affairs. In such a scenario, the protesting students not only managed to secure the resignation of the hall provost but were also supported by almost the entire student body of the campus.

Despite the given context, the fact that Asrar finds it pertinent to make sweeping statements like “The men in Aligarh are not used to women speaking their minds, let alone having one” illustrates that either he is not aware of these developments or does not find them worthy of mention probably because these political struggles were fought using a political language that did not subscribe to that followed largely by those on the Left-Liberal side.

Asrar detects the root of all malaise in AMU in the campus being depoliticised with very little scope for political education. He argues, “Student politics in Aligarh, unlike your university or most others, is ad-hoc and devoid of affiliations from the mainstream political parties. That emptying of politics from politics per se ends up creating student leaders, whose only claim to electoral positions is the most banal slogan you can ever hear in a university: “tempo high hai“.

I shall address the question of effectiveness of affiliations of students’ political organisations with mainstream political parties shortly, prior to that I would like to respond to the charges of AMU’s politics being ‘ad-hoc’.

During the last AMUSU elections, Abdullah Azzam ¹, a Law student was elected as the President of the AMUSU. Not only did his election campaign focus on the myriad issues of State terror, communal polarisation the question of gender justice in AMU campus among many others, but was also substantiated by slogans like “for value based politics” and “proud to be political, dare to be right”. The fact that he was elected shows that AMU students are concerned about politicising the AMUSU elections and would like it to take up serious political concern rather than engage in empty, meaningless rhetoric.

Apart from this, AMU students currently engage in the dissemination of political knowledge through several students’ collectives and discussion forums aptly illustrating that politics exits much beyond the realm of electioneering. The University Debating and Literary Club, a component of the Cultural Education Centre of the University continues to make efforts in re-politicising the domain of culture and literature. One of its flagship events the AMU Literary Festival has not only subverted the idea of mainstream Literary Festivals by not taking corporate sponsorship and raising critical issues like encounter killings, the assertion of marginalised groups through their literature, etc. but is also one of the biggest events in the campus where public discussions and deliberations are held.

As Asrar states in his piece, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) and AMU are two of those sole Universities in India that have largely been administered by non-academicians and army generals. Therefore, it would be apt to mention it to him that all the student activities mentioned above are conducted by the students under a hostile administration and at times with threats of suspension looming large. In the initial years of his Vice-Chancellorship as the current AMU Vice-Chancellor sought to create a pro-State sentiment amongst the students by inviting Army Generals to speak on human rights violations in Kashmir and other conflict ridden areas, the AMU students and the then AMUSU responded to it by holding programmes that challenged this mainstream narrative and the need to speak out against State terror by framing it as a question of justice.

Let me now turn to Asrar’s assertion that the only way genuine students’ politics can be carried out is when we have students’ organisations that are affiliated to mainstream political parties. This argument is largely put forward by people on the Left and acts as a proxy for more influence of Left students’ organisations where there isn’t any.

As a resident of a state which has seen the longest Left-ruled government in world history, I have a personal experience of how the Left Government has used its affiliated students’ organisations to strengthen its rule in the state. The political hegemony of Left in Bengal has been achieved by, among other things, ensuring a stronghold of its students’ organisations in the college and university campuses of the state resulting in the worst forms of political violence. Non-Partisan political students’ organisations such as the Independents’ Consolidation in Presidency University and the Forum for Arts Students, We the Independent and Democratic Students Union in Jadavpur University have not only been instrumental in resisting the hegemony and political violence of the dominant Left wing groups in their respective campuses, but have also illustrated the importance of non-partisan political organisations which draws its strength and political language from the very students whom they claim to represent.

While political violence is not something that can be alleged against the Left students’ organisations in JNU, but as the recent assertions by Dalit and Muslim groups in JNU have shown, the much celebrated JNU model in Left wing circles, has been built by systematically dismantling the questions of caste, identity and intersectional politics. As this recent speech by Rahul Sonpimple, a prominent Dalit leader at JNU shows, the University’s politics has been by and large dominated by the upper castes and questions of social justice have largely been absent in the Left discourse of the campus.

The recent Najeeb Ahmed encounter also further elaborates on the Left’s failure to consider the importance of identity and the complex, intersectional forms of oppression that is generated due to it. The Left led JNUSU is yet to acknowledge that the assault on Najeeb Ahmed and his subsequent disappearance has got to do with his Muslim identity and is not just another instance of ABVP hooliganism.

Therefore, non-Partisan students’ bodies are not necessarily a “separation of politics from politics per se”, as Asrar would like to believe, but actually play an important role in generating meaningful students’ politics and strengthening democratic traditions in our campuses.

I also register my protest against the FIR filed against Shehla Rashid which, on the face of it, looks like an attempt towards political equations in AMU more than anything else and also because it makes no sense at a time when we are living under a Government which in an unprecedented manner is scuttling the rights of students and virtually turning our universities into prisons.

In these circumstances, it is very easy to associate oneself with either of the two polarising groups and indulge in mud-slinging and name-calling of the other group. However, what is more important is to arrive at a more nuanced understanding and response to issues pertaining to blasphemy, freedom of speech and secularism, as Talal Asad does in his incredible work “Is Critique Secular: Blasphemy, Injury and Free Speech”, not only because these issues concern not just AMU students but is a challenge before Muslims all over the world and also because very often than not the violent response of Muslims is used as an excuse to typecast Muslims asunfit for democratic countries and perpetuate further Islamophobia.

AMU students like Muslims all over the country are in an attempt to craft a political language of their own that enables them to raise their political voice from the purview of their identity and their lived experiences. Therefore, it would be of very little help to typecast AMU students as a monolith and perpetuate and strengthen the stereotypes used against AMU.

¹ Abdullah Azzam is a member and activist of Students Islamic Organisation, the students’ wing of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. The author has significant political and ideological differences with the same. Abdullah Azzam did not contest the elections under the banner of SIO and was supported by a multitude of students both within and outside SIO.