A large number of Quaid-e-Azam University students have lately been apprehended for protesting against and defying the administration. The strike seemed to end last week when the vice chancellor agreed to include students in the university’s syndicate meetings. But all reports of calling off the strike proved to be ethereal, just like the claims made by administration of settling the issue. What actually exacerbated the situation brought it to this verge was the incident of disallowing students of the university’s Students Federation’s Baloch Council from attending one of such meetings. This augmented the concerns of students who blame the administration of victimising those hailing from Balochistan. A protest driven by as petty demands as revising fee structure and provision of new hostels and buses worsened to allegations of discrimination within no time. Who is to blame? The presence of student unions, or the fact that these unions are existing and functioning outside the ambit of regulations?
Kanhaiya Kumar… What are the words that immediately strike an average sane mind in response to calling out his name? Struggle. Determination. Resolve. Commitment. The reason of his fame? Being president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University students’ union and preferring imprisonment to advocating Hindutva politics. While we can easily find many supporters of his in today’s time, there are several who think of student leaders like Kumar as wretched youth and student politics as means of perpetuating violence. The funniest of the facts, however, is the deep-rooted existence of violence in and outside of universities and colleges all over Pakistan despite a ban on the student unions that is in effect since quarter of a century.
Another prominent name is of Michelle Obama. The opponents of the notion under discussion might disagree on the mention of her name as she was not part of any formal union, but in order to understand the way she managed to establish an identity of her own being a black female student at Princeton University back in 1980s we must bring into spotlight the discrimination that she faced and the entire struggle that followed. How she felt “like a visitor on campus”, how the mother of her white roommate tried to get her daughter moved because of Michelle’s skin colour, how she was compelled to write her thesis on the discrimination faced by black community at Princeton, and how working with the Third World Center made her cognizant of the difficulties faced by minorities. It was owing to this exposure that she later participated in demonstrations advocating the hiring of professors who were members of minorities. In the absence of unions and active political societies at students’ level, can we see that happening at any point of time in the forthcoming future? If students taking politics in their hands is that big a crime that would has the ability of scathing the fate of any country then are we ready to face a fact check after a hundred years that we are centuries behind the United States in terms of social development?
The Senate’s Committee of the Whole passed a resolution in August calling for the revival of student unions in educational institutions. But this is not the first time that restoration of unions has been given a green signal. Former Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani had also announced a similar verdict after receiving a unanimous vote of confidence from the National Assembly in 2008. The ban was originally imposed through Martial Law Orders issued in 1984 in wake of growing cases of violence in the campuses and the concern shown by the society. It is, however, also widely believed that the decision was based on reports that anti-government alliances had gained considerable influence and strength and these could pose threat to General Zia-ul-Haq’s government. As it appears, the government feared a students’ movement, the same sort that helped topple President Ayub Khan’s government. If the latter is factually the case then is this ban justified at all? And if the former is the case and “growing cases of violence in the campuses” was the major concern how will we ever be able to justify Mahsal Khan’s lynching by a mob of students on the premises of Abdul Wali Khan University? Was that not an epitome of violence? Was Mashal Khan not murdered as a result of university politics? And could that be prevented despite the ban placed on student unions?
It is a well-known historical fact that until the ban student unions were formally recognised bodies by the administration of the educational institutions. In most cases, fees at the institutions included explicit or implied Students Union Fund which was provided to the elected office-bearers of the student unions and which was spent under a set of rules. Usually a staff advisor was appointed by the administration who worked closely with unions and acted as a bridge between the two. In almost all institutions, a constitution and a set of by-laws governed the functioning of these unions. In the given scenario, how could any of this be in conflict with interests of students and institutions if it is being committed under the ambit of defined law?
The real problem does not lie in student politics but in the fact that how the charged youth stood for its rights. The problem lies in the fact that these student unions played a significant role in various national political movements whether related to students or not. The problem lies in the fact that these very students played an unforgettable role in the political movement against the Tashkent Declaration that eventually led to President Ayub Khan’s ouster in 1969. The problem lies in the fact that the political movement of Pakistan National Alliance for the ouster of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s government in 1977 also involved a large body of students. The actual problem lies in the fact that these student unions have always played a mentionable and indelible role in student mobilisation and national level movements and have not feared voicing their opinions on international issues as well.
This is what those who banned the unions were scared of. This is what Zia-ul-Haq was scared of. This is what our current political fraternity is scared of. This is what our opposition is scared of. But there is, after all, nothing to be scared of if one’s intentions are pure and actions, legal.
