For the moment, students are neither on a sit-in nor on hunger strike, but the reality is that the atmosphere remains tense. Multiple issues have created unrest among both students and staff
S.M. Anwar Hussain | Clarion India
SUPPORTERS of Aligarh Muslim University and admirers of Sir Syed must have heaved a sigh of relief as the nearly three-week-long student protests ended at 4.30 am on Wednesday.
The protests, sparked by a steep fee hike and marked by sit-ins, hunger strikes, a complete boycott of classes, demonstrations at Abdullah Girls’ College, confrontation between Abdullah Hall students and the college administration, and a heavy deployment of Uttar Pradesh Police around the campus and the Vice-Chancellor’s lodge, raised fears of a violent clash.
The strike ended after the Vice-Chancellor met with protesters, promised to accept their demands, and offered juice to those on hunger strike. She also persuaded the protesting students to return to their hostels. In this way, the university narrowly avoided a deepening crisis. Yet, by Tuesday evening, the situation shifted again, and it now appears that the cycle of sit-ins, boycotts, and hunger strikes may resume soon.
It was pretty ominous as on Wednesday evening, a letter issued from the Vice-Chancellor’s office stated that the fee hike would be capped at 20 percent. (In practice, this means that for new admissions, the increase could be anywhere from 20 to 40 percent or even higher. In contrast, students had reportedly been assured of a rise of only 2 to 10 percent). The letter also made no mention of the proctor’s dismissal, and further stated that some protestors would be summoned before the university’s disciplinary committee.
Women students agitating at Bab-e-Syed gate of AMU on Monday. — HT photo
As the reality dawned on students, their anger reignited and as the night fell, a large crowd had gathered at the iconic Bab-e Syed, remaining there for hours. Senior faculty managed to soothe their ruffled feelings and sent them back to their respective hostels.
Students felt betrayed, claiming that the Vice-Chancellor has violated the terms under which they called off their sit-in and hunger strike. Since the release of this letter, the atmosphere has again turned explosive. The situation simmers beneath the surface, and no one can say when it might explode.
I have no hesitation in saying that the current turmoil at Aligarh Muslim University is a direct result of the administration’s incompetence and shortsightedness. For the moment, students are neither on a sit-in nor on hunger strike, but the reality is that the atmosphere remains tense. Multiple issues have created unrest among both students and staff.
As a former leader of the students’ union, my advice to students is this: if ever forced into a hunger strike again, they should opt for a relay hunger strike rather than an indefinite one. Each day, five or ten students could fast for 24 hours symbolically. This would maintain strength and momentum, while sparing the university the risk of a major crisis or violence. Otherwise, God forbid, if the health of even one student worsens, outrage may erupt beyond the control of student leaders. Students must remember that they alone must fight for their rights and for the preservation of the university’s minority character, but they must do so carefully — so that if a fire breaks out on campus, they are the ones able to extinguish it. As the poet Majaz wrote:
“Here we lit the fire, and here we shall extinguish it.”
But care must be taken that no such fire erupts which consumes both them and their alma mater.
The protests were so intense that a large number of girls from Abdullah Girls’ College joined the sit-in to show solidarity, despite opposition from their provost and the principal. This demonstrated the administration’s failure to manage the growing anger among students. Normally, female students maintain etiquette and decorum in their interaction with senior college officials — but this time the situation was different. Equally remarkable was the sight of visually impaired students, striking their canes on the road, joining the protest in large numbers. (According to fresh reports, some visually impaired students are now staging a sit-in at the Centenary Gate, blocking it.)
At Bab-e Syed, students gathered in large numbers, angry and chanting slogans, while Uttar Pradesh Police stood outside. A sizeable police force was also patrolling between the Proctor’s Office and the Arabic Department, heightening fears of confrontation.
As I said earlier, had the administration acted with foresight, the situation would never have escalated this far. If they had implemented a moderate fee hike, consulted students, and included the fee increase in admission prospectus, the matter would have remained minor. Instead, the administration quietly imposed a unilateral and steep increase, provoking unrest — and when students protested, the proctor only added fuel to the fire.
The students’ protest was entirely peaceful. There was no violence, no vandalism. Yet, to suppress it, a large police force suddenly stormed the campus, assaulted students, misbehaved with female students, and attempted to drag them out by force. Two students were reportedly taken away by the police, with FIRs lodged against them.
Following a sudden fee hike AMU students launched protests by blocking the Baab-e-Syed gate.
Here, I must commend the students for their restraint. They did not lose control, did not clash with police, and did not attack the Proctor’s Office. If they continue to remain disciplined and patient, they will be able to resist future injustices by the administration or any conspiracy — internal or external — against the university.
A critical question arises: who authorised the police to enter the campus? No one is willing to take responsibility — neither the Proctor nor the Vice-Chancellor. The role of the IPS Registrar remains unclear. Worse still, the administration refuses even to condemn this unnecessary intrusion. Adding insult to injury, the Proctor was heard justifying the intervention by claiming students were preparing to offer prayers on the road. He echoed the BJP and Sangh Parivar’s narrative: “Prayers cannot be offered on roads. If you want to pray, go to a mosque or your room.” But the road in question was not a public highway; it was an internal university road. For over a century, it has been tradition for students to pray at their protest sites. This is a Muslim university: prayers, azaan, Taraweeh, communal iftars, Milad-un-Nabi gatherings, and Seerat conferences are all part of its culture.
The larger problem is that Vice-Chancellor Naima Apa, aided by her husband, the maneuvering of the BJP-backed former Vice-Chancellor Tariq Mansoor, and the blessings of local BJP leaders, may have secured her post—but she does not seem to uphold the stature and dignity of her office. She is the head of one of India’s oldest and most prestigious central universities, once hailed as the Oxford and Cambridge of the East. She must realise that she is not subordinate to the district administration.
Though herself an Alig, having studied, researched, and taught at AMU, she seems unaware of the prestige of her post and the grandeur of the institution. Had she understood, she would never have agreed to attend the convocation of a local private university last year — an institution more concerned with selling expensive degrees than spreading knowledge — as “guest of honour,” where a trivial figure was seated as chief guest. That episode demeaned both her and her institution.
The Vice-Chancellor’s dignity does not lie in walking with the Proctorial team shouting “move forward, step back.” Whether dealing with district or state authorities, she must realise that as Vice-Chancellor of AMU, she is not their subordinate. Her fundamental duty is to strengthen the academic system, foster critical thinking and scientific temperament, while the role of the administration is merely to assist. They may be called upon for help, but they have no right to interfere in the university’s decisions.
The administration appears to be underestimating the severity of the situation. Reports suggest the police entered campus at the Proctor’s behest and patrolled up to the Arabic Department. If true, this was a grave administrative blunder — a provocation that could have easily sparked a clash.
Why did the fee hike spiral out of control? Who pushed it? On whose advice? These questions remain speculative. Some believe the sudden increase was a “mini bomb” meant to derail the selection committee for appointing a new Controller. But what is clear is that certain forces do not want reconciliation between the Vice-Chancellor and the students.
At AMU, professors’ loyalties are layered and complex. It appears the Vice-Chancellor is made to be fearful of the students, while students are being incited against her. Otherwise, the demands were not unreasonable.
Photo courtesy: The Print
The real question is: Who are the elements standing like a wall between students and the Vice-Chancellor? In Aligarh, it is said the Vice-Chancellor is like a father. In this case, as a woman, she is like a mother. But what kind of mother is Naima Apa, whose heart does not stir with love and concern for her children?
Naima Apa, the IPS Registrar, and the Proctor must realise: universities run on moral authority, not on bouncers and police.
The second major clamour of students is for Students’ Union elections—an entirely legitimate demand. The administration claims to have no objection but hides behind the vague excuse of a “suitable time.” Now, elections are promised for December — too late, with exams also due. Even if held, the session will end by April, leaving the union with just 3–4 months. Clearly, this is an attempt to weaken it.
The third demand was the dismissal of the Proctor. This should have been accepted immediately. He is accused of prolonging the crisis with his incompetence and inept handling of the situation.
The Vice-Chancellor must realise: If the university burns, neither her chair nor the university’s reputation will survive. The minority character case is already pending in the Supreme Court. Any major disturbance could influence that verdict. She should also recall that her husband’s involvement in the Vice-Chancellor selection process had already drawn the Supreme Court’s critical remark.
If she can act independently — free from her husband’s shadow, Tariq Mansoor’s influence, and local BJP pressure — and distance herself from her current advisors, the situation can still be salvaged. She has gained much from AMU as a student, researcher, and teacher; if she now upholds those values, both her post and the university can be saved.
She must remember that while she is accountable to the central government, she is ultimately answerable to the Almighty. That awareness would serve both her and the university well.
Naima Apa has the distinction of being AMU’s first woman Vice-Chancellor. The question now is whether she can turn this crisis into an opportunity. She must shed the image of a “caged” or “captive” V-C. Her greatest strength is her womanhood — she should embrace it, and engage directly with students without hiding behind bouncers or proctorial staff.
She should understand that students are the Vice-Chancellor’s true strength — not a problem or a weakness.
The truth is, AMU today needs macro-surgery. Normally, students bear the brunt of such measures, but this time the surgery must target faculty, administrators, and advisors. Those hired to teach must teach. If they wish to do clerical or technical work in their spare time, they may, but their primary duty is teaching and research. Negligence in performing core duties is unacceptable anywhere.
And so, I end with a verse by Kaleem Aajiz, dedicated to Madam Vice-Chancellor: Neither that gathering convened again, nor that round of wine returned; Since the day the tavern’s order came into your hands.
____________
The author is ex-President of AMU Students Union. The views expressed here are his personal.
