The recently concluded Delhi University Students Union polls have clarified one thing above all: that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations have utterly failed in checking the role of money and muscle power in student politics.
In fact, it can be argued that if anything, these recommendations have cemented the hold of powerful parties and made developing an alternate political voice on campus all the more difficult.
To be sure, the Lyngdoh Committee was set up by the Supreme Court in 2006 in the face of a very real and severe crisis in student politics. A palpable disconnection could be felt between the aspirations of a majority of students across campuses and the style and language of politics employed by student unions supposed to represent them.
Party politics
Very rightly, the committee identified that student unions across the country had become increasingly partisan, violent and expensive. In most cases, the direct involvement of political parties ensured a tacit immunity for student leaders indulging in hooliganism, with university administrators unable to take any action against offenders due to pressure from powerful party bosses. This also served to discourage common students who sought to engage in an honest politics, as these students could never compete with the power of established political networks and vested interests.
The Lyngdoh Committee thus identified the involvement of political parties as the main cause of the crisis facing student politics. It moved ahead on the assumption that if political parties could be removed from the entire process, all the remaining problems could be solved by simple administrative oversight.
Therefore, the committee’s recommendations for a model code of conduct for student union elections began by calling for the “disassociation of student elections” from political parties by ensuring that “any person, candidate, or member of the student organisation, violating this rule shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings.” From here it went on to limit election expenditure to Rs 5000 for every candidate and a total ban on the use of printed materials for campaigning, among other restrictions.
It is no secret that these restrictions are universally ignored even eight years after the recommendations came into force. In fact, if anything the combined effect of all these recommendations has been to strengthen the already entrenched hold of major political parties on student elections.
Reality vs Idealism
First of all, by disassociating parties from the process, the committee also unwittingly absolves the candidates from any legal responsibility for their party’s actions. The entire nomination process has no mention of any party or other organisational affiliation. While the party campaigns for its entire “panel”, the candidates themselves file nomination papers in their individual capacity. All the expenditure is done by the party, even the printed posters and other campaign material is not distributed by the candidate, but by the party in support of the candidate.
Even if the party is pulled up for violating any rules (a rare enough occurrence in any case) no violation can be shown on the part of the candidate. This leaves powerful political outfits to do as they please, while independent students who truly wish to present an alternative are left fighting the university bureaucracy for every inch of the already limited legal space that is left by the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations.
A more sensible option might have been to recognise political parties as an existing reality and bring their conduct within the scope of the regulations and code of conduct. Of course, there are other issues with the committee’s report, such as the unrealistically low cap on election expenditure, and a complete ban on printed campaign materials even in campuses that have thousands of voters in direct elections. But the report’s attitude towards involvement of political parties indicates a more serious problem with its larger vision of student politics.
The committee’s report deliberately ignores the phrase “Student Politics”, instead using phrases like “Student Elections” and “Student Representation”. While it romanticises the role of student movements as integral cogs in the “Satyagraha Machine” before independence, the report goes on to construct its image of a student union as primarily concerned with campus issues, protected from political and ideological discourse.
At one point, the report criticises the role of political organisations as they “unnecessarily politicise the election process”. The Lyngdoh Committee apparently wants elections, but without politics. It is not only an unrealistic goal, but also a highly questionable one.
It is easy to be turned off by politics when we witness the violent hooliganism that is often carried out in the name of Student Politics. But that doesn’t mean we can – or should – wish away the existence of political parties in any political process.
As the Lyngdoh Committee has shown, good intentions are not enough to affect meaningful reform.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
In fact, it can be argued that if anything, these recommendations have cemented the hold of powerful parties and made developing an alternate political voice on campus all the more difficult.
To be sure, the Lyngdoh Committee was set up by the Supreme Court in 2006 in the face of a very real and severe crisis in student politics. A palpable disconnection could be felt between the aspirations of a majority of students across campuses and the style and language of politics employed by student unions supposed to represent them.
Party politics
Very rightly, the committee identified that student unions across the country had become increasingly partisan, violent and expensive. In most cases, the direct involvement of political parties ensured a tacit immunity for student leaders indulging in hooliganism, with university administrators unable to take any action against offenders due to pressure from powerful party bosses. This also served to discourage common students who sought to engage in an honest politics, as these students could never compete with the power of established political networks and vested interests.
The Lyngdoh Committee thus identified the involvement of political parties as the main cause of the crisis facing student politics. It moved ahead on the assumption that if political parties could be removed from the entire process, all the remaining problems could be solved by simple administrative oversight.
Therefore, the committee’s recommendations for a model code of conduct for student union elections began by calling for the “disassociation of student elections” from political parties by ensuring that “any person, candidate, or member of the student organisation, violating this rule shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings.” From here it went on to limit election expenditure to Rs 5000 for every candidate and a total ban on the use of printed materials for campaigning, among other restrictions.
It is no secret that these restrictions are universally ignored even eight years after the recommendations came into force. In fact, if anything the combined effect of all these recommendations has been to strengthen the already entrenched hold of major political parties on student elections.
Reality vs Idealism
First of all, by disassociating parties from the process, the committee also unwittingly absolves the candidates from any legal responsibility for their party’s actions. The entire nomination process has no mention of any party or other organisational affiliation. While the party campaigns for its entire “panel”, the candidates themselves file nomination papers in their individual capacity. All the expenditure is done by the party, even the printed posters and other campaign material is not distributed by the candidate, but by the party in support of the candidate.
Even if the party is pulled up for violating any rules (a rare enough occurrence in any case) no violation can be shown on the part of the candidate. This leaves powerful political outfits to do as they please, while independent students who truly wish to present an alternative are left fighting the university bureaucracy for every inch of the already limited legal space that is left by the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations.
A more sensible option might have been to recognise political parties as an existing reality and bring their conduct within the scope of the regulations and code of conduct. Of course, there are other issues with the committee’s report, such as the unrealistically low cap on election expenditure, and a complete ban on printed campaign materials even in campuses that have thousands of voters in direct elections. But the report’s attitude towards involvement of political parties indicates a more serious problem with its larger vision of student politics.
The committee’s report deliberately ignores the phrase “Student Politics”, instead using phrases like “Student Elections” and “Student Representation”. While it romanticises the role of student movements as integral cogs in the “Satyagraha Machine” before independence, the report goes on to construct its image of a student union as primarily concerned with campus issues, protected from political and ideological discourse.
At one point, the report criticises the role of political organisations as they “unnecessarily politicise the election process”. The Lyngdoh Committee apparently wants elections, but without politics. It is not only an unrealistic goal, but also a highly questionable one.
It is easy to be turned off by politics when we witness the violent hooliganism that is often carried out in the name of Student Politics. But that doesn’t mean we can – or should – wish away the existence of political parties in any political process.
As the Lyngdoh Committee has shown, good intentions are not enough to affect meaningful reform.
