'Cockroaches' of 1982

Four decades ago when Delhi University students came together to fight for justice, they faced the same questions that now confront the CJP

In 1982, Dilip Simeon, beloved teacher to many young students at Delhi University’s Ramjas College, a Naxalite in the first phase of the movement, and an implacable opponent of the politics of communalism, joined a hunger strike in support of a college gardener whose wages the college administration withheld without an enquiry. A few days later, on his way to college, he was badly beaten by a gang of men. His left leg was broken in two places, and the upper part of his jaw was permanently damaged. He lost five teeth.

 

The assault on Mr Simeon coincided with the molestation of a young woman, allegedly at the office of the Delhi University Students’ Union (Dusu), then led by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). This put young women on campus, already terrorised by the phenomenon coyly called “e**-t**sing”, at a tipping point. Angered and enraged, students across colleges of Delhi University felt they’d had enough. They loosely banded together in an organisation they called the Committee Against Goondaism, sat on a dharna, seeking Ramjas College Principal Kartar Singh’s resignation, and, if he couldn’t make the campus safer, also Vice-Chancellor Gurbakhsh Singh’s removal.

 

The principal was asked to go on leave. He tried to re-enter the premises with the help of hired muscle. This earned him the dubious honour of being the first ever principal of Delhi University to be suspended for breach of peace and violence. Meanwhile, the students clogged the streets of Delhi University with daily demonstrations. They barricaded Gurbakhsh Singh’s office. Their only weapons were full-throated slogans and a cause. There was no social media in those days and word about the protest spread spontaneously all over the vast university. What added heft to the movement was that the vanguard was not just any motley group of students — they were the cream of the cream, toppers and distinction earners, mostly children of middle-class parents with a healthy disdain for power politics. All they wanted was fairness, justice and democracy. And that institutions do their job. Nebulous though it was, their motivation was a call to the collective social conscience.

 

Even as it came together, the Committee Against Goondaism wrestled to define itself: Who are we, what do we want, and what should we do with this astonishing mobilisation we’ve managed to effect? Extended debate followed: How should we change things? By joining political movements or by becoming a political group ourselves? Should we always pledge to be non-violent or is some form of violence against instruments of the state justified? Was the continued existence of the Committee even warranted, or should everyone melt away where they were before, having achieved their purpose (Kartar Singh gone, assurances that life for girls on campus would be safer)? Is structure more important or ideas?

 

The debates were extended, sometimes impatient, but the organisation meandered away, though its members put their experience into practice elsewhere: One founded a corporate empire based on participative equity, some became environmental activists, others journalists, film-makers and world-renowned academics. However, no one joined power politics.

 

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) is debating similar issues. As protests go, nothing beats a healthy turnout. But when you add to that, the many more sources of mobilisation — Twitter, Telegram, Instagram, etc — it makes for a formidable and influential body of people. Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das represent the core of the CJP. They are of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) stock. But unlike many others in AAP, they haven’t lost their idealism or faith yet in the belief that an alternative form of politics is possible. The internal debate is: Should the CJP convert itself into a political group, fighting elections? Or should it continue to be a pressure group?

 

Though it is early days yet, it is the latter option that the CJP is veering towards, according to Mr Dipke’s announcement, despite well-meaning advice that not all politics is dirty business and you can change things from within the system. The external political environment is watching the CJP with interest. Although AAP transformed into something quite different from the CJP, many in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) acknowledge that AAP weakened the Congress and to that extent the BJP benefited from its rise. Some see in the CJP the same potential of weakening the Opposition. Hence the BJP/RSS’s “softly softly catchee monkey” approach, with co-option being the ultimate aim. The Congress sees a kindred spirit in the CJP but also sees the danger of moving fast on this.

 

By the end of September, we will have a better idea of what the CJP wants to do with itself. Its Kya Bolti Public campaign will be a listening exercise to draft the issues that will guide its future programme. It will also be a test of loyalty. As to the vehicle that will take this programme forward — for the moment it is likely to be social media, with CJP branding. Whatever its future structure, this much is clear: The CJP has succeeded in rattling the political establishment with the potential of delivering more surprises.