In this Quora response, a JNU student Harshit Agarwal who claims to be independent of the organizers or being a sympathizer to them elaborates the sequence of events.

He explains in his Quora post that Democratic Student Union (DSU) in JNU consists of extremely well-read students who may have a Maoist ideology but not separatists themselves. He raises the question if as Indians “are we ready to hear the issue of Kashmir from Kashmiris”? He claims that he does not support sensation of Kashmir but want to hear them out and hence he thinks organizing the above event was justified.

Now let’s look at the event poster. It was against “Brahmanical Collective Conscience”. I am not sure what the organizers would have thought but the meaning I understand from the phrase it was against set believes created about the valley by Kashmiri Brahmins. The poster also said the event was against “judicial killing” of two terrorists and claims to be “in solidarity with Kashmiri people”.

So the conception of the ‘cultural’ event was against Kashmiri Brahmins who were an integral part of Kashmir’s population and are Kashmiris too. So when the organizers claimed it was in solidarity with Kashmiri people they could not and should not have excluded Kashmiri Brahmins from it.

If we read the poster further we see it is written the event was to portray ‘history of occupation in Kashmir”. So they wanted to discuss something that said “India was occupying Kashmir illegally” and the Kashmiri people (without the Hindus in it) are against it. The poster further invited everyone to join them to “Protest in rage against the occupation and in solidarity with valiant (brave) people of Kashmir”.

So the event organizers never wanted to peaceful debate or discussion on the issue rather they wanted a violent protest against the union of India in which they live and enjoy all facilities of taxpayers’ money.

Now if we look back what this JNU student Harshit Agarwal is saying we find his argument to be frivolous as the event was never meant to be a discussion but an inception of a violent protest. I only want to tell him that “dear these protests mean nothing but treason”.

Harshit explains that after “Judicial Killing” of Afzal many had protested the verdict too. He gave examples to prove his point that the judgement was biased and wrong. But that is, in other words, commenting on the highest legal system in a manner to show they are incapable of delivering justice. Another direct attack on our judiciary that could only be done by filing PILs in the Apex court and through patient hearing. Another means of showing India in a bad light by a student.

Then the student explains that JNUSU and other left unions wanted to go ahead with their democratic peaceful agenda of holding the meeting. Unfortunately, he forgot that the agenda of the cultural event was not peaceful in the first place. The poster itself said it was a violent protest. So if ABVP protested against the holding the “Cultural Event” in the name of freedom of speech they were legitimate in doing that.

Now when authorities blocked the main venue of the event the organizers went near dhaba to conduct what Harshit said was ‘meeting’. However, ABVP students started shouting clichéd slogans like –

“Ye Kashmir Hamara Hai, Sara aka Saraa hai”.

Now, what Harshit described as clichéd does that mean he has any confusion regarding the slogan made? I feel so and this coming from someone who claims to be not aware of Kashmir issue is too much of a dangerous statement. Because no matter how ignorant one is about Kashmir matter, one (an Indian) should not believe the event agenda that India is occupying in Kashmir and Kashmiris want Azadi (Pakistan Agenda).

The demonstrating students shouted “Hum kya chahte, Azadi”. Later he explains “Azadi” as “Right to Self Determination of people belonging to a region occupied by two nations”. Here again, he ignores the fact that the protesters were only talking against India and Not Pakistan. So they want to separate out from India and hence trying to justify this statement is as good as sedition.

Next slogan – “Tum Kitne Afzal Maroge, Har ghar se Afzal nilklega”

He tries to justify this statement highlighting how Afzal was framed by an Indian court and thought that a group of the student was protesting against that and should not have been a big deal for a nation. However, when we look at Afzal’s past anti-India activities and association in parliament attack even as a mastermind we understand this slogan as a threat to a nation that all homes will give birth to Afzal’s who will conspire against India. If this is not sedition then what is?

He also wrote that none of these slogan shouters were carrying arms, they only carried ideas. But what he missed out was they were not carrying any idea for the betterment of the country but they carried separatists ideas and they were militant about it. That means, they were violent slogan shouters and not peaceful meeting organizers. And hence treason charge is justified.

Now he tried to justify their act as the protest was openly organized and not a secret event and all the students appeared in TV debates. And that where terrorism has gone today. Some people masquerading as intellectuals are robbing our youth of their mind and creating cultural pollution and hatred as a new ideology. And all these left-wing groups did in the name of new ideology was creating India hatred.

Now he explains every word in slogans to justify them –

He says “Bharat” means Indian military establishment to a Kashmiri youth. He claims “Bharat ki Barbaadi” means the end of the military establishment in Kashmir. Since it is about ending only Indian military establishment that shows this group of people was actually against India and its military. This is the greatest insult for the men in uniform who die every day in the border. If Kashmiri youths are fed up with any military presence they should have held talks with the government and not created such ruckus in a campus and instigated violence.

He also explains “Jang” means struggle that was done by Gandhi, Marx or others and leaves this for interpretation of individuals. But no matter whether the protesters were talking about peaceful protests of ‘Satyagrah’ type struggle what they should have done first was to take their points to the government for consideration and not started shouting slogans to disturb the peace. Also, they wouldn’t have brought outsiders in the campus to disturb the peace. One reason to think of their struggle as violent aggression rather than peaceful satyagraha.

He further explains that no JNU student was involved in slogan shouting but we have seen them in TV debates and in some videos shouting those slogans and hence his account cannot be believed. Rather it is natural to think that he is a leftist sympathizer.

He raises a question about our nationalism. “Someone raising some slogans becomes absolute blasphemy” – he says. But the point lies these were not just someone who could be ignored. They were students (or outsiders among the students) who were polluting the atmosphere of a university run by Indian govt. These shouting slogans become important because these were against the same nation that cares for them, gives them benefits and feeds them. The organizers should not have allowed outsiders to shout anti-India slogans in the first place if they didn’t believe in them. But they did and that is why they need to be selectively punished and later the outside goons.

Lastly, he has also attached a video to show that it is, in fact, ABVP supporters who were shouting those anti-India slogans. But this argument also falls flat because ABVP as an organization has already opposed this event, protested against it and filed a complaint to stop this event. So if a few students found in this rally were also found in some other rally, that only makes them fringe elements and not real conspirators. Rather the left unions and JNUSU president went on air to support those slogans, and hence they are directly responsible for the treason.

Dear Harshit, if you read this ever, let me tell you that I am open to conflicting ideas too, but understand when it is too much of conflict with your own existence and then try to justify such terrorism. If Afzal Guru’s hanging was not justified, then two months ago our parliament has changed Juvenile Justice Act based on the crime committed by one juvenile. This act will affect all our children in future too. None of you intellectuals came forward then and protected our children? Then why are you trying to protect one outsider today? This only shows that you are a sympathizer of such separatists and terrorists and makes your arguments counterproductive.

***