Rating: 4.5 Stars 

Which Indian citizen doesn’t recall the fiasco that erupted at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (popularly abbreviated as JNU) in the year 2016 that shocked and then galvanized the nation? Clashes between rival student groups, the intervention of enforcers of Law and Order (police) and the sedition charges slapped on the central face of this sordid saga: Kanhaiya Kumar. All this was accompanied by high-decibel TV debates and the din of social media outrage. The words ‘Freedom Of Expression’/FOE became a staple on the lips of all and sundry who thought that being ‘anti-establishment ‘, ‘anti-state’ and ‘anti-nation’ was an acceptable or even admirable position to hold. Others who (rightfully) disagreed were outraged and had no qualms in calling for these ‘protestors’ to be held accountable. After all, why was their treason being tolerated despite there then being a more vigilant government at the centre?

Endless debates and discussions ensued over this display of ‘dissent ‘ against the state. Media houses spun stories that made it seem as if the government were viciously clamping down on innocent students. This is despite video and audio samples revealing snippets of what unfolded, surfacing on social media. JNU, once perceived as a centre of academic excellence now came to be known as a den of anti-national ‘freeloaders’. They were labelled the ‘tukde tukde gang’ and that epithet aptly sums up the intentions, character and disgraceful actions of the so-called ‘protestors’.
However, what is the nitty-gritty of what ensued? Is it true that the students who commemorated the hanging of terrorist Afzal Guru did so under the pretext of a poetry reading? Was this one of many such pointless ‘protests’ that have become a part and parcel of JNU? Was the administration really ‘heavy-handed’ in its attempts to contain the ensuing chaos and establish order? And finally, do the protesting students have the democratic ‘right’ to call for the destruction of the very state that funds their education?

This book answers all these questions and more. It is an insider account by JNU’s longest-standing professor, Shri Makarand Paranjape, that neatly captures all that took place on February 9, 2016. It provides the context, history and events leading up to the now infamous fallout and what ensued subsequently. Written in his trademark scholarly style that couples erudition with wit and incisive insights with concrete facts, it makes for an addictive read. The good Professor also provides a pragmatic set of solutions to the problems that ail this once-renowned institute. While I’m still sceptical that JNU can ever be fixed I must admit that he makes a compelling case for salvaging rather than defunding the university.

Highly recommended.

Additional Notes : 

Summarising the System of ‘Patronage and Propaganda’ and proposed solutions: 

Dr. Paranjape advocates for restoring the campus to normalcy by de-escalating tensions and hostility, and also for making the pursuit of academic excellence the primary priority of its students.

The biggest problem would be dislodging an entrenched system of financial benefits that works perfectly. Those that have gotten used to continually ‘free loading’ will never relinquish their unearned incentives without a bitter fight. Cheap accommodation and academic fees only scratch the surface. Toeing the ideological line reaps many benefits, the least of all which include: fellowships, higher education in foreign universities, future job opportunities and access to a well-connected cohort/network of co-conspirators. I’d also add referrals by mentors/superiors. This is necessary for any field but more so in the humanities where the job market is continually shrinking and the supply greatly outweighs the demand.

The rot starts right at entry level with new entrants housed with seniors, owing to poor hostel facilities. The purpose is twofold.

1. Gives the future and current students something to perpetually protest about.
2. Also seeks to indoctrinate the innocent and ignorant youngsters who are vulnerable when thrown in close proximity to the already indoctrinated. Their romantic idealism and youthful naiveté are preyed upon, misdirected and morphed. Soon they begin to resemble their ideological initiators. The vicious cycle continues when a new batch of students arrives.

Anyone a part of such an impeccably run rotten system wouldn’t want it fixed given that it works so well in their favour.

Dr. Paranjape has provided an excellent blueprint at the end of the book on how to restore JNU to its former academic excellence. These are good solutions and the sooner they are implemented the better. I will add that I would have liked a deeper dive into how to actually break up the ideological nexus with methodical steps.

While he perfectly understands this system of ‘Patronage and Propaganda’, and its shortcomings and wholeheartedly agrees it needs to be fixed, I’m unsure how urgent he considers it to be. I believe the time of writing was sometime between 2020-2022 i.e the COVID lockdown period. He mentions it as a long-term objective with the immediate one being to restore normalcy and try to reconcile the students’ and teachers’ unions on one hand with government-appointed administrative staff on the other. I’m not sure I agree with that order of priorities. While both can often be simultaneously pursued, the danger of more youngsters getting indoctrinated is too great to be put on hold any longer. The best time was probably 8 years back when the present NDA government was voted to power. Of course, the compromised mainstream media that continually sided with JNU throughout the disgraceful saga will cry foul but when do they not?

Another recurring concern that Paranjape refers to towards the end of the book is the ‘heavy-handed’ but not wholly effective handling of the protests – the 2016 protest and all subsequent ones pertaining to fee hikes, higher attendance requirements and so on. The administration was headed by the Vice Chancellor, Dr. Jagdish Kumar, appointed by the NDA in Jan 2016. He is personally known to the author who vouches for his sincerity of character and sympathises with him for having to deal with students’ and teachers’ unions that despise him. Yet he questions the ‘heavy-handed’ approach adopted by the administration in trying to maintain order and enforce regulations. The author himself advocates for a more diplomatic approach tempered with the force of discipline. Attempts to instil Patriotism by inviting Retired Major General Bakshi, Cricketer Gautham Gambhir, and the ‘Intellectual Kshatriya’ Rajiv Malhotra (a term he coined himself) for Kargil Vijay Diwas, which on the surface seem genuine, have unfortunately not worked. How could they, when students so ideologically indoctrinated have every incentive to hold steady to their existing views?

After almost 6 years, it’s clear that no concrete strides have been made and perhaps the missteps by the administration have only further riled up the students. Not to mention further giving the Hinduphobic media a field day to peddle false narratives which continue to garner sympathy for the protestors.

Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 : 

These are two of the book’s stand-out chapters. The former is an expanded version of the talk given by Paranjape on the JNU campus. A recorded version is available on Youtube. The latter details the coordinated slander that was launched by the ‘left-liberal’ cohort against him in the immediate aftermath of the fiasco and his subsequent rebuttal of all the ‘Open Letters’.

‘Tagore, Gandhi and What’s Left of the Nation’
I disagree with the conclusions he draws regarding Gandhi’s role in the making of the nation, and do not think that he should continue to be emulated as a role model. However, his detailed analysis of Tagore is beautifully done. To those who recall, Tagore was appropriated by the left in defence of holding an ‘Anti National’ position. Would Tagore be labelled ‘Anti-national’  by today’s standards? Dr. Paranjape believes otherwise and dives deeper by analysing his non-fiction essays on Nationalism and his works of fiction (Gora, Ghare Baire, Char Adhyaya). Although his works show his undoubted discomfort with Nationalism, Tagore is more aptly described by the term ‘Alter nationalist’ than ‘Anti nationalist’. If anything, he was only ‘Anti Imperialist’ since he strongly criticised colonial means and methods to expand the British sovereign. To summarise, “Tagore’s critique of nationalism was quite different from JNU’s negativism and negationalism.” (Pg. 88)

His comprehensive criticism of the nearly extinct ‘Traditional Left’ in India and how their loyalties always lay outside the nation (USSR, China) is commendable. It’s perfect for Millennials and Gen Z readers who have not yet been introduced to the Left’s violent history and poor track record. Communism possesses the dubious distinction for the death of 1.7 million in concentration camps set up by the USSR. These were their own citizens.

Chapter 5 details Dr. Paranjape responding to the flurry of ‘Open Letters’ that were simultaneously, and I might add suspiciously, launched in the same narrow time frame. Some were other professors while others were impressionable students, with the sole intention being to demean and demoralise the Professor. It certainly took him quite an investment of time and effort to refute their attempts to defame and denunciate him. He patiently and persistently dealt with each one. His responses are well formulated, and eloquent, and serve as a masterclass for youngsters seeking to refute claims of the (il)liberal ideologies with their factual inaccuracies and lack of any clarity and principles.