Following a joint statement by the elected student representative bodies of eight national law university, opposing a police crackdown on student protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, the NLSIU Bangalore student body as a whole has passed an “unequivocal condemnation” of the police’s “assault on the rule of law, morality and democratic ethos and tradition that is fundamental to dignified living” (see picture above).
In the statement the students also “beseech the judiciary to take due cognizance” and adds that the students believed that the CAA was “completely against the foundational values that the Constitution of India is built upon, and which we so cherish”, noting:
The act is discriminatory, devoid of any reasonable classification, and at its base uses religion as the basis for granting citizenship. In its form and design, it is clear that the law is intended to directly target inter alia the Muslim minority community and is a classic example of a brute majoritarian preference aggregation impinging on the secular fabric that is woven into our founding document. We do not support this legislation, and call upon influential members of the legal fraternity, both on the bar and on the bench to join us in rejecting this morally bankrupt law.
The statement was passed unanimously at a general body of students, attended by more than the quorum of 25% of the entire body, according to its student bar association (SBA).
Many NLUs make statement but not all
It follows the NLSIU SBA and the elected representatives of seven other NLUs (NUALS Kochi, Nalsar Hyderabad, MNLU Mumbai, MNLU Nagpur, HNLU Raipur, NLU Odisha, NUSRL Ranchi) having put out a similar but more cautious joint statement earlier yesterday.
That statement was put out without a general body vote from students at those universities and was also far softer than NLSIU’s, merely condemning the police for its apparently disproportionate use of force in cracking down on civilian protests and being completely silent about the CAA (see joint full statement below, via Facebook).
Nevertheless, mirroring the intentionally deep divide caused by this and other recent political issues, not all NLU student bodies initially got behind this statement.
Notable by its initial absence, perhaps, was NUJS Kolkata, which was not in the initial joint resolution that was published by eight NLUs.
However, NUJS’ general body of students passed a resolution yesterday night unanimously, by show of hands, and the Student Juridical Association (SJA) released its statement on its website in support of the other NLUs’ statement, noting:
NUJS stands in complete solidarity with the students of Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University and is proud to be a part of the Joint Statement made by the Student Bodies of NLSIU, NALSAR, HNLU, NLUO, NUALS, NUSRL, MNLU-Mumbai, and MNLU-Nagpur.
We further strongly condemn the disproportionate and atrocious exercise of force by the police and extend our unconditional support to the students of these colleges and all other colleges in the exercise of their constitutional rights. We sincerely urge other National Law Universities to come together to join the Statement.
Teacup tweetstorm
As too often in this day and age, all this did not pass without getting noticed on Politico-Legal (tm) Twitter, where it kicked off a minor controversy.
One self-described “conservative” lawyer practising at the Supreme Court tweeted (we have not included names and Twitter handles, so as to avoid further pointless fanning of flames):
My intern & [senior office bearer SJA] of #NUJS, Kolkata, [...] is being targeted by his fellow students both on campus & on social media for his stand again violence by #Jamia students. They’ve been FORCING him to issue a solidarity statement in favour of Jamia & AMU. Please share!
We have not been able to corroborate that there has been any coercion or force used, but the lawyer included a screenshot of the following tweet by another NUJS student:
quote-tweeting because I must, and because [...] is the NUJS [SJA office bearer]. is it any wonder that the SJA was apprehensive about putting out a solidarity statement?
That student had “quote-tweeted” the SJA office bearer, who self-identifies as “conservative” and “Hindu” on his Twitter profile, whose tweet had said:
Mindless vandalism by stds at Jamia Univ shows how opposition tries to incite violence and vandalism among universities. Govt. cannot be blamed or targeted for passing a law within it’s consti. powers, challenges to amndmnt must be entertained by the SC, vandalism is disgraceful
Following the tweet by the Supreme Court lawyer, the (presumably non-conservative) NUJS student in turn responded to the lawyer with:
It’s so completely ridiculous of you to accuse me and other NUJS students of forcing [SJA] to issue a statement. He is a student body representative, and nobody forced him to take up the job. It would be great if he could speak for himself, without an army of trolls.
Derailing discourse
This is probably not a unique narrative on law school (and other campuses).
A tweet by the same conservative Supreme Court lawyer was cited by the self-described right-wing Swarajya blog, which carried a story headlined “NALSAR Law Student Allegedly Being Hounded For Pro-CAA Statement By Varsity’s ‘Liberal’ Students And Teachers”.
The Nalsar student had told the website that: “CAA has been challenged in the Supreme Court and as students of law we must submit to Court of Law for further decision making. However harassment and intimidating social media reaction on my personal opinion fails the objective of a liberal campus with free speech.”
Again, no evidence was provided that there was actual harassment for pro-CAA views in either case and we have not been able to independently confirm that there was any harassment.
That said, it’s certainly feasible that being in favour of the CAA is an unpopular opinion on law school campuses these days. Such views could even conceivably attract some social opprobrium from fellow national law school students, who tend to be imbued with an idealism encouraged by fresh knowledge of India’s secular constitutional values and the rule of law; meanwhile, online, such idealism is increasingly treated and harassed as being “anti-national”.
So, while these Tweets may just be tiny storms in teacups, they show that even law school students and campuses are not immune from the larger national narratives that are intentionally derailing fact-based discourse by the day, which end up making things more about emotion than the law.
Continuing to keep emotion and the law separate will be the only way the latter can survive.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
1. Why are solidarity statements not issues condemning the Congress for the 1984 riots? Or Mamata for the actions of her goons? Or Pakistan for its treatment of Hindus, Balochis, Shias and Ahmadiyas? Or China for its treatment of Tibetans and Muslims in Xinjiang?
2. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are subjects of legalised discrimination and horrific violence. Do you want India to turn them away?
3. Why are these people silent about the violence that happened in Delhi?
1. Whataboutery aside, because 1984 was 35 years ago, and the other thing is happening right now? Because Mamata goons are no worse than the gau rakshak and thousands of other political party goons, which operate on a national level everywhere. Because Pakistan and China are literally different countries that are not India, where these students live, and that also make no claims to be as democratic as India?
2. If violence is the yardstick, the biggest genocide in recent years is of a Muslim minority in Myanmar by a Buddhist majority. Why are you turning them away? And what about sub-sects of Muslims getting persecuted in these countries? What about atheists or Jews?
3. This 'violence' or property damage, even if it is not proved that it has been done by protestors and not by the police, is a fraction of the violence that Hong Kong saw in protests and even the Hong Kong police showed more restraint than Delhi's...
The worst thing about the trolls is that they should just be honest and admit that they want India to stop being a secular democracy, and instead become like China and Pakistan? Why are you pretending otherwise?
Anyone who bothers to "see" knows that CAA has a good chance of getting smacked at some level by the courts. Hell if things really go south at a "global" level, the govt may pull back. HM has already said he is open to tweaks, is considering extension of ILP to Tripura etc. What do all these things say? CAB/CAA was mostly about dog-whistle politics and in a sense the "party" is mostly interested in polarizing. Once that is achieved, does it really matter what the SC does or doesn't?
And does anyone here really think that SC doesn't do "politics"? The game has just begun.
I am not in support of CAA. But I also don't think that once the technicality of quorum is complied, then it can necessarily be called SBA version, especially on matters such as these. If we can have the detail called "quorum was achieved" then why not tell us that this resolution was passed with overwhelming majority.
At a certain level aren't we doing what the dog-whistlers are doing. Using (political) arithmetic in LS and RS to say and do things that a considerable 'majority" may not really want?
How about the SBA saying that X numbers supported a particular version but alternate versions were supported by the Y and Z numbers?
nls.ac.in
Because explaining that "the CAA is constitutional" is easy. Any first year law student can do what Salve did, and come out with shallow arguments that put a fig-leaf of "logic" on the CAA.
Maybe the SC will find it "constitutional". Expect some "reasoning" that says that it is for those who are not citizens today, and all of that.
But, the CAA goes against who we are as humans. I am very upset that, as a citizen of this country, we are choosing to enact laws like the CAA, which take a cavalier and unthinking attitude to some people.
I want to stand with those who are better humans. I do not want to hide behind elastic arguments around constitutionality.
"If India was to say that any Hindu can migrate into India, but no other community, even that may be constitutionally valid." Really Mr Salve?
"If the NRC exercise is flawed, even without this bill it would result in a lot of Indians getting evicted. If it's not flawed, this bill will just protect some people and not others." Um, is that not by definition discrimination on the basis of religion?
Maybe being denied citizenship on the basis of religion once convinced them it’s a bad idea to do that to anyone.
I welcome the persecuted from our neighbouring countries, but abhor the idea of putting in a religion based provision on granting citizenship. I am sure the same ends (asylum and citizenship to persecuted minorities in neighbouring Islamic countries) could have been achieved even if the Act had been drafted less divisively.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that [...] pak, bangladesh or afghanistan [...] are the same countries, where it is is ok to marry off children, keep them as sex slaves, throw homosexuals off rooftops and need i add more? [...] Don't get me wrong, this is not applicable to Indian Muslims who are civilized and have every right to exist as citizens of this nation. One might of course say that India has Hindu war mongering clowns also but those people are dumb and constrained to only select region doing their dumb shit, they are not even close to being as co-ordinated as these lovely folks i was just talking about.
JNU people are absolute jokers as well, everytime they time their protests right before their exams, so that 30 year old krantikari undergrads can spend some more time in campus, doing krantikari work but produce no research for which they get insurmountable amount of public funding, which can be put to better use. Most of these people pursue degrees for which there can be possibly no demand in the market, (B.A. Korean/Russian/Tagalog - Lets be realistic - they are useless) and then unable to find a job as a manager in a company they surprising are frustrated and criticize the economy, while actively being a burden on the same.
muslims from pak, bangla, afghanistan would be a huge national security threat, and its a good thing their influx is being controlled and the ones already in are carefully being expelled.
B. You are the one who's claiming that jnu students don't amount to anything. Yet when it comes to achievements or graduate outcomes, like the good IT Cell Troll that you are, you won't accept any ranking, national or international to be the benchmark, nor political, economic, industrial, literary positions or achievements nor awards or recognitions as relevant! What exactly is your benchmark of graduate success then? Doing yoga 24*7, drinking cow piss, confusing between astrology and astronomy and building temples? Every single claim that you've made about jnu is patently false, [...]
www.livelaw.in/news-updates/students-alumni-of-symbiosis-ils-gnlu-condemn-police-action-against-aligarh-and-jamia-students-150920
"If I find the Constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it".
Neutrality in the face of oppression is cowardice.
twitter.com/BBTheorist/status/1207374469817196546
1. NLIU
2. RMLNLU
3. MNLU Aurangabad
4. HPNLU
5. CNLU
6. DSNLU
7. TNNLU
8. NLU Jabalpur
9. NLU Haryana
2. The views of individual faculty members from various NLUs can be seen in their respective, person social media posts.
3. There is no collective body representing any particular NLU faculty or faculty/staff - these aren't permitted. Therefore, there is no singular collective faculty or faculty/staff opinion being stated.
4. Any institutional viewpoint can only be given via acceptance of the GC and Chancellor. Do you really think they are lining up to give anti-government views? Do you think individual faculty members, esp. younger ones, have any say there?
So, please stop trying to collectively shame/bully/slander us - we have given personal views, we have no collectives, we have no voice in the university system (but that the students are aware of and make use of when they go over our heads to the VC/Registrar/Acad-Dean to regularly get our voices over-turned.)
2. Alternatively, some of them might even be participating in protests taking place across the country. Were you at most of them? Did you have people at most of them reporting to you? Would such hypothetical people even recognize me if I was at the protests at Patiala yesterday? Or a friend of mine in Guwahati?
Please, go do what you have to do. Let me take care of my life.
Some of these are genuinely agitated youngsters, [...], some to look hip, some to score points in appropriate faculty books and some leaders for foreign admissions and scholarships. [...] They are like the Momentum gang of British Labour, an elite out of touch with masses [...] Just like Momentum left Corbyn and Labour clutching straws, so will these [...] leave those for whom they are fighting.
www.republicworld.com/india-news/law-and-order/mnlu-clarifies-stance-on-caa-extends-unconditional-support.html
Unless there is direct evidence to the contrary and someone on the list gets in touch to let us know they did not consent to signing it, it seems safe to assume that the signatories are genuine...
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/those-born-before-1987-or-whose-parents-born-before-1987-are-indians-govt/articleshow/72902857.cms
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first