The English lecturer of Mangalore University College Pattabhirama Somayaji has once again rubbed the Sangh Parivar the wrong way. Students of the college with loyalty to ABVP forced a one-day boycott of classes to register their protest. Principal of the college sought a written explanation from Pattabhi about his ‘actions’ and after obtaining the explanation he duly forwarded it to the Vice-Chancellor of Mangalore University. The VC has promised that he would take up the matter at the upcoming Syndicate meeting. In short, Pattabhi has once again become an ‘unresolved problem’ for both the college principal and the Vice-Chancellor!
Pattabhi has been a problem for the “concerned authorities” of the University since he started opposing the politics of Sangh Parivar in Mangalore. In fact, it dates back to the days when he raised his voice against a dubious US-based anti-Indian company called Cogentrix. The Pattabhi 'kirikiri' can be compared only with the hunger of the poor, both show no signs of dying down.
Irony is Pattabhi did not invite these problems on his own. He neither violated the rules of the land nor breached the social etiquettes. Still he finds himself in a situation where he owes an explanation to the higher authorities. The fresh allegation against Pattbhi is that he has delivered a public speech on August 9, 2010 at a programme organised by the Popular Front of India (PFI). It was a working day for the college. But, Pattabhi delivered his speech at the meeting at 5.30pm. Moreover, it was not a closed-door meeting. It was held in front of the DC Office after seeking due permission from the authorities and also amidst adequate police security.
The intention behind the programme was to mount pressure on the concerned people to expedite the investigation into bomb blasts in Malegaon, Ajmeer Darga, Makkah Masjid of Hyderabad, Samjotha Express and Goa and to demand stringent action against the culprits. Pattabhi had not breached any law by participating in that programme. He had just exercised his constitutional right. However, the ABVP unit of the College promptly submitted a written complaint to the Principal against Pattabhi on August, 10, stating that the English lecturer had participated in the PFI programme during duty hours. The Principal received the complaint and directed Pattabhi to submit a written explanation on the issue. Pattabhi made his submissions on the same day.
However, the ABVP boycotted the classes for a day and forced all the students out of their classes demanding the college authorities to take ‘appropriate action’ against Pattabhi. They also assaulted some Muslim students affiliated to Campus Front of India, for opposing the forcible boycott. They also attacked the SFI students who were distributing pamphlets against privatisation of education and FDI in the field of education. Sadly, the khaki-clad police, who rushed to the spot following the incident, used harsh language against the Muslim students and asked them to leave the campus.
Pattabhi could not stay aloof. He asked the police why only Muslim students were sent out of the campus and the ABVP students were allowed to remain within the college premises. Police calmed down following Pattabhi’s intervention. A few Muslim students had been injured after being attacked by the ABVP boys. However, police looked at these victims as if they were the actual culprits. In fact, it has become a common practice in the coastal districts for attackers to rush to the police station after any such incident and lodge complaint against victims and also get admitted in the hospital. Similar ploy was adopted after the incident at the University College. After beating up Muslim students on the campus, the group rushed to the adjacent Wenlock hospital in order to get “admitted”. But their effort was foiled by the Pandeshwara Sub-Inspector who caught the boys at the gate and took them to the police station. This was one of the rare examples where the Mangalore police behaved in an impartial manner. Following ABVP-sponsored forcible bundh, classes were conducted under tight police security for over a week.
ABVP has grown as a powerful student outfit in Mangalore University College. It has become a daily routine for ABVP students to pick up fights outside the classes and heap insults on Muslim students under the pretext of targeting Pattabhi. They had attacked Muslim students also the day Pattabhi delivered his speech. As an eye-witness Pattabhi had submitted a written complaint to concerned people seeking action against the attackers.
One might wonder why Pattabhi gets into all this 'adhika prasanga'? But people should ask themselves, whether beating up of innocent students by ABVP boys inside the campus could be justified in any way? One should realize that Pattabhi was carrying out the same kind of duty when he urged swift action against the Hindu terrorists in a public speech and also when he resisted the violent acts of the ABVP on his own college premises.
Therefore, the concern shown by Pattabhi should not become a problem for either the principal or the vice chancellor. Even the larger society should not consider it as a ‘kirikiri’. Peace cannot prevail in a society where there is no justice. Conducting classes under police security is not a nice thing. To avoid this, the principle of rule of law and equality before law should prevail in the University College and also in Mangalore at large. The concessions being allowed to ABVP to carry on its violent activities should be stopped forthwith.
G. Rajashekar is a well-known literary and cultural critic, and a social thinker. He is also the Udupi district coordinator of Komu Souharda Vedike, a communal harmony and human rights forum. He has co-authored two books in Kannada on the growth of communalism and writes regularly for Lankesh
Comments
Add new comment