Jamia Cannot Keep Democracy Suspended Forever
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2026-10-25 09:41:42
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
Jamia Millia Islamia's decision to dissolve its elected students' union in 2006, following violence on campus, may have been prompted by genuine concerns about discipline. But what might have been defended as an administrative response to a difficult situation has now lasted nearly two decades. An entire generation of students has passed through the university without an elected union. That is difficult to justify indefinitely.
The current agitation has brought this unresolved question back into focus. Students have been demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students' Union, with an indefinite hunger strike beginning on October 12. The university has constituted a committee to draft a constitution for the union, but the absence of a clear election timetable has left the central demand unresolved. On October 24, the administration shifted classes online after a confrontation between protesters and university staff. The immediate dispute concerns campus order, but the underlying question is one of democratic representation.
The university has a legitimate argument to make. No institution is obliged to tolerate violence in the name of student politics. Nor should an elected union become a parallel authority, free to intimidate teachers, obstruct academic work or dictate administrative decisions. The violence of 2006 cannot simply be wished away.
But it is not an argument against elections. It is an argument for conducting them under clear and enforceable rules.
The difficulty with using the events of 2006 to justify the continued absence of an elected union is that the burden falls on students who had no responsibility for those events. They did not participate in the violence, yet they have inherited its consequences. A generation that had nothing to do with the violence of 2006 should not have to inherit the political consequences of that episode indefinitely. A university cannot reasonably expect successive batches of students to accept that their right to elect representatives must remain suspended because an earlier generation failed to observe acceptable standards of conduct.
There is, of course, no rule that every educational institution must have a conventional political union. I studied at St Xavier's College in Kolkata, where student affairs are organised through an elected Students' Council, without political affiliations, rather than a conventional political union. The college has demonstrated that student representation can take a different institutional form.
The lesson is not that Jamia must copy St Xavier's. It is that the form of student representation can vary, provided the arrangement gives students a credible and accountable voice. If Jamia believes a Students' Council would be preferable to a conventional union, it must explain why and demonstrate how such a council would adequately represent students across the university. If the university accepts that an elected union should return, it must establish a clear timetable and safeguards against violence. What it cannot do is leave the question unresolved indefinitely.
A university-wide union need not control the administration or interfere in academic decisions. Its purpose is to provide students with an organised platform to raise grievances, negotiate with the authorities and represent common concerns. Department-level associations can address local issues, but they are not necessarily a substitute for a university-wide body capable of taking up concerns that cut across departments.
The administration should therefore convert its committee's work into a concrete process, with meaningful student consultation, a published timetable and a defined date for elections. The constitution should prescribe safeguards against violence, intimidation, misuse of union funds and disruption of academic activities. Those who violate the rules should face proportionate disciplinary action, following due process.
The students, for their part, must recognise that the right to organise and elect representatives carries responsibilities. Peaceful protest is legitimate; violence, coercion and the deliberate obstruction of academic activity are not. The restoration of an elected union cannot be a licence to disregard university rules.
But discipline must not become a convenient substitute for representation. The administration must explain how it proposes to move from committee deliberations to an actual system of student representation, rather than leave students waiting for another indefinite period.
Jamia should not be asked to forget its past. It should be asked not to remain imprisoned by it.
The violence of 2006 can inform the safeguards adopted for future elections. It cannot, by itself, be an answer to every subsequent demand for representation. The administration has a responsibility to maintain order, but it also has a responsibility to ensure that students have a credible means of making their voices heard.
Nearly twenty years without an elected union is long enough. Jamia should now move from committees and assurances to a clear, time-bound process. A university that prepares young people for life in a democratic society should also ensure that they have a meaningful voice in the institution in which they study.
