¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

For over two decades, university campuses have witnessed forms of oppression, extortion, and violence under the guise of student politics, and therefore a negative view of student politics has developed, leading to the growing popularity of demands to ban student politics on campuses, writes Mostofa Nazmul Mansur

AFTER the July uprising, one of the topics stirring significant debate is whether student politics should exist on campus and, if so, what its nature should be. It appears that the interim government has taken the question seriously. On October 30, the interim government’s Posts, Telecommunications, and Information Technology advisor, Mr Nahid Islam, stated in a speech that his government prioritises restoring students’ political rights and aims to organise student union elections in universities. This statement seems to have public support. At the same time, there is another opinion, which advocates for the complete ban of political party-based student politics on campuses. This view also has clear public support, which cannot be overlooked.

Those who advocate for a complete ban on student politics on campuses believe that a group of misguided youths engage in such politics and disrupt the academic environment, or that involvement in such politics leads otherwise capable students astray, ultimately damaging the educational atmosphere. Either way, according to them, the disruption of the academic environment is an inevitable result of student politics. I disagree with this notion. During my college and university years, I was involved in student politics. Not only was I involved, but I was highly active in it; I participated in and was elected multiple times in university student union elections. So, I had a full-fledged involvement in student politics. Despite this involvement, I graduated at the top of my class in both my undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, securing first class and achieving first position in each, and later joined my university as a faculty member. Therefore, statements like ‘a student will perform poorly in their academic work if involved in campus politics’ or ‘only wayward students get involved in student politics’ seem to me hasty generalisations. However, those who make such generalisations cannot be entirely blamed. For over two decades, Bangladesh’s campuses have witnessed forms of misbehaviour, oppression, extortion, and violence under the guise of student politics. Given these circumstances, it’s not surprising that people might be drawn to such generalisations. From such generalisations, a negative view of student politics has emerged in our middle-class society, leading to the growing popularity of demands to ban student politics on campuses.

However, the history of student politics is not limited to just those two decades on which the demand for banning student politics on campuses is being raised. Rather, these two decades can be termed ‘two decades of the complete absence of acceptable student politics’ on campuses. The history of student politics is much broader, containing accounts of continuous occurrences of minor and major violent incidents, as well as a history of struggles worthy of pride. If we set aside this ‘two decades of complete absence of acceptable student politics,’ we find that student politics, both before and after independence, is filled with both positive and negative narratives. However, I won’t delve too far back into history. Instead, I wish to focus on the late 1980s to the early 1990s — a period when I was directly involved in student politics.

This period covers the anti-Ershad student movement, the mass uprising leading to Ershad’s fall, and Begum Khaleda Zia’s first term as prime minister. Those who followed politics during that time will surely recall that Begum Khaleda Zia’s uncompromising political image and the steadfast role of the BNP’s student wing (Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal) in the anti-Ershad movement contributed to its peak popularity among students nationwide. There’s no historical denying of this reality. This immense popularity of JCD started during the mid-Ershad era and continued during Khaleda Zia’s first term when it functioned as the government-backed student organisation. Along with this popularity, the organisation held substantial influence during her first term. Nonetheless, one cannot equate the student politics of that period, particularly at Jahangirnagar University, where I was involved, with the student politics of the last two decades. It must be acknowledged that, even then, incidents of credit at campus shops, intimidation, group conflicts, and disputes over dorm room allocations (although all students were allotted rooms and there was no concept of ‘Gonorooms’) occurred, along with some violent activities on campus. However, despite all this, there was mutual empathy, tolerance, unity, and coexistence among all student groups, except for Islami Chhatra Shibir (the student organisation backed by Jamaat-e-Islam), of course. Above all, there was a transparent and impartial process for regularly electing student representatives through the Jahangirnagar University Central Student Union elections. I can share an example of this coexistence from my own experience. When I ran for the student union election, my opponent from a different student organisation was my roommate. Despite contesting for the same position from different organisations, there was no political discord between us; our bond and empathy remained strong. We campaigned during the day and spent our nights chatting in the room. The spirit of solidarity and friendship that developed then still persists between us. Many students involved in politics during that period may share similar examples of coexistence at the university.

How was it possible to maintain such a generally acceptable state of student politics at Jahangirnagar University during that time? In my view, one of the main reasons was that only regular students were involved in student politics at that university. These students attended classes in the morning, took tutorials, spent afternoons chatting with friends, joined political rallies in the evening, and studied for the next day’s exams at night. At the postgraduate level, if a student took a year off, they would lose their position in the organisation. If a student took more than two breaks between undergraduate and postgraduate studies, he or she could not hold any position in the organisation or participate in student union elections. I even witnessed a JUCSU vice president who, after completing his postgraduate studies with his regular batch, left the campus, vacating his VP position. During that time, the committees of student organisations at Jahangirnagar University were formed by regular students from the first year to the postgraduate level, with no place for ‘adubhais’. In fact, the concept of ‘adubhai’ didn’t exist at the university back then. The committees of student organisations were formed through a democratic process via a council of the organisation’s members; no committee was imposed from above. And since JUCSU elections were held regularly, students involved in politics aimed more to become popular leaders than ‘aggressive cadres.’ This had a positive impact on the behaviour of student leaders, which was evident. Among the student leaders at Jahangirnagar University, it’s not that there was no resentment or hostility, but the beauty of leadership competition was more apparent than the intensity of rivalry and animosity.

Is it possible to bring back this type of student politics to Dhaka University and other public universities in Bangladesh? I believe an attempt could be made. If such an effort is undertaken, I would like to offer some proposals based on my personal experience to support this endeavor. These proposals pertain specifically to political student organisations, not social or cultural organisations:

—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý All student organisations must be approved by the university authority. No unapproved organisation will be allowed to operate on campus.

—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Only regular undergraduate and master’s-level students may be members of student organisations. Post-graduate students will not be permitted to join any student organisation or participate in Central Student Union or Hall Student Union elections, nor will they be allowed to vote for candidates in these elections.

— Committees of student organisations must be formed democratically by regular students. No committee may be imposed by any political organisation external to the university. Updates regarding the committee, including the formation process, must be reported to the university authority; otherwise, the committee will not receive recognition from the authority.

— If any member of a student organisation abuses the power obtained as a member of the organisation to physically, mentally, or sexually harass another student, the university authority may temporarily or permanently suspend the organisation’s activities on campus, in addition to imposing punishment on the offender.

— If a masters-level student takes a year off, the student will lose his or her position in the organisation, and the university will no longer recognise him/her as a representative of any organisation.

— If any student takes more than two breaks from undergraduate to masters-level studies, he or she will lose his or her student status. In such a case, s/he will immediately be regarded as an ‘ex-student,’ and his or her dormitory seat will be cancelled, requiring him or her to vacate the hallroom within two weeks.

— Regular elections for the Central Student Union and Hall Student Union should be held. Each student union’s term should be one year, after which it will dissolve before the next election. If a student in the Student Union loses his or her studentship for any reason, the student will no longer hold his or her Student Union position.

— In central and hall union elections, a student may participate either on a party basis or independently. Even if running on a party ticket, no candidate can use images of national leaders in campaign posters, banners, or materials.

— As per regulations, five student members should be nominated as the senate members of the university through the Central Student Union.

— Hall seat allocation will be entirely managed by hall administration, with no involvement from the hall student union. The administration will ensure that every student receives a seat, with equal occupancy in all rooms.

— Hall administrations will abolish ‘Gonorooms’ and install close-circuit cameras in guest rooms.

—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý The Hall Administration, with assistance from the Hall Student Union, will work to improve the quality of dining services.

—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý All incidents of ragging or harassment must be thoroughly investigated, and the findings, along with any disciplinary actions taken (to the extent that they can be publicly shared), should be made available to the public.

—ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý All types of social, cultural, and sports activities should be encouraged administratively.

— A ‘Campus Committee’ comprising student, teacher, officer, and staff representatives should be established to bring campus matters to the attention of the authorities and provide necessary suggestions.

As I previously mentioned, I am aware of and understand the negative attitude that exists towards student politics, particularly among students and society. I recognise the reasons behind this negative perception, and I feel them deeply. Yet I believe that after the July uprising we can consider allowing student politics once more, but with serious reforms. In the era of authoritarian rule, genuine student politics was virtually absent; thus, judging all student politics based on that period would be oversimplification. I am not claiming that student politics was entirely idealistic even before the era of dictatorship, but I’ve provided an example in this article of a somewhat acceptable form of student politics that did really exist. In light of the post-July uprising reality, I believe it’s possible to establish an even better reformed version of student politics, and I am an advocate for this reform-oriented approach on campus. However, if I fail to convince you and you are unwilling to accept even a reformed version of student politics, then I must say: completely banning student politics will not be an easy task. Various statements issued by different student organisations at Dhaka University reveal the ineffectiveness of the decision to ban student politics, which was made during the emergency syndicate meeting on September 19. Therefore, if you intend to enforce a ban on student politics, it will require significant administrative force. Even if you successfully achieve this through sheer power, remember — student politics will repeatedly resurface, often disguised as social or cultural organisations. You may view student politics as an adversary. But remember, a concealed adversary is often far more dangerous than the one in plain sight, and dealing with a hidden enemy will be much more challenging. In my view, you could achieve meaningful reform on campus with less effort than the sheer force it would take to completely ban student politics. I also interpret the statement of adviser, Nahid Islam as supporting the active presence of student politics on campus — albeit in a reformed manner. I believe Nahid Islam understands that a ‘decision to ban student politics on campuses’ would be a ‘popular but wrong decision’ for his government.

Ìý

Dr Mostofa Nazmul Mansur is a professor of philosophy at Jahangirnagar University.