By Mantre Passah
First of all, this is written with no degree of bitterness nor resentment, but it is meant as a point by point counter-narrative of the issues pointed out by the author of “NEHU and its Students’ Union” (ST Oct 18, 2017). The NEHU Students’ Union (NEHUSU) has been very active in these past few years and many of the issues that it has taken up and its methods has naturally ruffled a few feathers within the university. This is not meant as a defence of the students’ union but to analyse as to why NEHU is in this situation.
As to the first point, where the author asks the question of whether there is a need for a students’ union, and if ‘yes’, is it for ‘organization building’ or ‘organization destruction’? – any form of unionism has been due to a natural reaction to a sense of dissatisfaction and alienation, and if we look at history, unionism of any form – be it labourers, students or workers of any kind, has been for the positive development of its constituents as well as the organisation or institution involved. It can indeed be for ‘organization building’, but in the case of NEHU, the problem is more deeply rooted, that for any issue, mere representation or negotiation does not work. A portion of the blame here can be laid on the administration and the officials of the university. Obviously, some are competent and some are constrained by certain factors, but any administration which does not seek opinions and which is undemocratic in its decision making is bound to fail.
On this point, issues that have been taken up by the NEHUSU like the continued opposition to certain clauses of the hostel rules (RU-3, OD-4), which have been implemented and imposed on students without proper consultation with them merit attention. This can be done only through proper representation of student representatives in the decision-making bodies of the University, particularly in the Academic Council. The current system is basically flawed (selection through academic performance) and as I have stressed earlier – undemocratic, and does not allow for representatives who are aware of the issues at hand. To speak of the institutional flaws of NEHU would require another article altogether. The author is right to point out that timely execution of duties by the authorities concerned would help in the organisation building of NEHU, but as long as that is not the case in NEHU, the students’ union will naturally use pressure tactics which might not be palatable to all. This ‘chaos’ is necessary because it is natural progression for a brick wall to be smashed if it refuses to allow a window, let alone a door.
To the second point that the author pointed out, while I do not deny that there have been instances of verbal ‘abuse’, it has to be taken into context. The blame cannot be leveled on the students alone. Certain officials, and their style of functioning (and speaking) are unbecoming to say the least. There is nothing else to comment on this other than that some individuals demand respect when it is undeserved. Regarding the usage of what the author termed as ‘abusive language’ towards the Vice Chancellor, the language used can hardly be termed as ‘abusive’. Moreover, the less said about the VC the better, since it is public knowledge that the current VC’s functioning has led to confrontations with even the teachers’ body of NEHU. Lack of competence and dynamism in leadership cannot be hidden through bourgeois veils such as ‘decency’ and ‘propriety’.
Regarding the third point where the author questions the role of the students’ union in the admission process of the departments. It is to be noted that it is purely as observers and it is a harmless exercise. If the students’ union helps in making the admission process of the various departments transparent, where is the problem in that? At the end of the day, no individual, be it a teacher or a student, can go against the regulations governing the admission process. The argument is moot since this observer status is granted as per the Constitution of NEHUSU, as approved by the University, and it is one of the institutional mechanisms that actually makes NEHU relatively transparent. The author does give an important point where the union can actually improve on, regarding providing more awareness and
assistance to prospective students regarding national level admission tests as well as the online system of admission. NEHUSU should indeed explore ways and means in making this possible.
Regarding the fourth point, where the author points out an obvious fact that the students’ union is a platform for those with higher political ambitions, it is a myopic view to hold that it is used only to gain visibility. The majority who are active in the union over the years have no inclination for mainstream politics at all. Student politics in NEHU has grown over the years and is helping students in becoming ‘more alert, smart and aware of rights and regulations’ and hopefully will continue in the years to come. Regarding the entry of political parties in the student politics of NEHU – that would destroy the student politics of the university, for that would only breed factionalism and divide the student community. The idea that a far-right body like Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), should take the leap in NEHU student politics is a nightmare scenario, and should be opposed tooth and nail by all stakeholders involved.
On the last point that the author notes, that in recent times the students’ union representation feels like ‘a bastion of ‘Ka Bri U Hynniewtrep’’, it is true that candidates have been only from the Khasi community, which is a testament to the political and social environment of the region more than anything else. But who would take the ‘leap’, and if yes, that is question that is uncomfortable for many to comprehend. Regarding the voter turnout in the recent election as well as in the recent past, though it may seem low, student interest and participation has been growing gradually and is bound to increase. But political apathy here is hardly surprising and it only mirrors the lack of interest found among many educated youths of the state. Though there may be other factors as well for this. I will have to disagree with the statement that the ‘current students’ union does not represent the entire student community’ of NEHU. Through the years, the students’ union has been able to bring together the various communities closer and has played a unifying role. The leaders of the current students’ union, and those of the past few years, will no doubt give a fitting reply to this, through their agenda and work.
NEHU is plagued by many issues that would require more experienced and knowledgeable people to open a debate on – be it the harassment and sexual harassment problem (which many people are scared to talk about and many deny), past corruption cases, and the most pertinent problem of the hundreds of vacancies (academic and administrative) that need to be filled up as soon as possible, that have hindered the functioning of the university for the past few years.
The problems facing NEHU are complex, and the students’ union is only one stakeholder that is engaged in pushing for student development and the progress of the university as a whole. Some may dislike its aggressive style of functioning in recent years, but that is because there is a section in NEHU who do not share the same vision as most do for the betterment of the university, or are too meek to break from the mould created by mistakes of the past. Whatever its deficiencies, at least NEHUSU dares to question and seek answers, however difficult they may seem.