All India Students’ Association (AISA) Jawaharlal Nehru University
We condemn the recent incident of linguistic discrimination, casteism, public humiliation and academic harassment at the Centre for Japanese Studies (CJS), School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. A student has come forward with a detailed account of sustained harassment she has faced in the classroom since her first semester at the hands of Dr. Dinamani, Assistant Professor at CJS. According to the account, made public in an open letter to the JNU community, this harassment took many forms – from being told her family needed “curing” of being “diseased.” She states that this pattern continued for over a year and culminated in a nervous breakdown recently where she was harshly questioned for a medical absence she had already informed her professors about. This had left her dealing with acute anxiety, nausea, and panic attacks. The Professor also used to ask the title of the students to know their social background. This is a clear case of institutional casteism.
She was also subjected to humiliation and ridicule by the faculty member for her difficulty with Hindi and was made to repeat in front of the class, “I will try my best to study Hindi”. She has further alleged that she was repeatedly asked to read, write and translate difficult Hindi and Sanskrit words despite her difficulty with the language. It must also be noted that the professor had denied to teach the class because the student had lodged complaint against him. A formal complaint was submitted to the Dean of SLL&CS on September 8. These allegations must be investigated seriously. They cannot be dismissed as a political controversy or reduced to a disagreement between student groups. A GBM cannot decide on a complaint against a teacher. A student body has every right to express its opinion. But a GBM cannot establish whether an individual incident of harassment did or did not take place. Nor can the number of signatures in a GBM substitute for an institutional inquiry into a complaint made by a student. It is also of importance that, the GBM was chaired by PhD scholars among who few were working under Dinamani. The GBM should have been held by SFCs. It is of no surprise that we have received reports that the PhD scholars were imposing their views and many who agreed with the complainant also registered their dissent. The PhD scholars were more concerned about the professors and centre’s image rather than justice. It is therefore deeply troubling that the response to a student’s complaint has been framed as a collective condemnation of the person who raised the issue, rather than as a demand for a fair investigation.
Do not change the subject,The CJS statement also describes the allegations as the result of political affiliation and personal vendetta. It further says that complaints have been made against social-media posts containing hateful, misogynistic and sexually offensive material. If such material has been circulated, the university should examine it through due process and take appropriate action. But those allegations cannot be used to answer or suppress a separate complaint about classroom conduct. Two questions must not be conflated: First: Were offensive or defamatory statements made on social media? Second: Did the alleged incidents of casteism, linguistic humiliation and academic harassment take place inside the classroom? The first question does not answer the second. If there are legitimate complaints about social-media abuse, let them be investigated. If there is a complaint of harassment by a student, let that too be investigated. Due process must apply equally to everyone. AISA demands,An independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry into the student’s complaint regarding allegations of casteism, linguistic harassment, mental harassment with no interference from faculty members, student organisations or administrative authorities. This should include SC/ST representatives as the allegation of casteism is of grave concern and requires immediate intervention. Protection of the complainant and witnesses from retaliation, intimidation or social-media harassment while the inquiry is pending. Preservation and examination of all relevant evidence, including written complaints, communications, examination records and other material relevant to the allegations.
A fair hearing for all concerned, including the faculty member against whom allegations have been made. Immediate restoration of regular academic activity so that students do not suffer further academic loss because of the dispute. A clear mechanism for students to report academic harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Separate action on any misogynistic, sexually offensive or defamatory social-media content, irrespective of which political organisation or individual is responsible for it. Students must have the right to question teachers and institutions without being branded as politically motivated, while teachers must have the right to defend themselves through a fair process rather than through a trial by social media. JNU has a long history of bringing together students from different states, languages and social backgrounds. Its classrooms cannot become spaces where a student’s regional or linguistic background is used to humiliate them. No language can be a licence for humiliation. No GBM can replace an inquiry. And no political affiliation can be a reason to deny a student justice. AISA stands for an inclusive, democratic and discrimination-free JNU and demands that the university administration act immediately.
