By P. L. Srinivas
What is unfolding at Jawaharlal Nehru University today is not dissent. It is a defiance of constitutional order. And it deserves to be called out—not politically, but nationally.
I write this not merely as a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party, but as a former student leader of the Congress’s National Students Union of India (NSUI), someone who once believed deeply in the discipline of democratic protest. What we are witnessing in JNU now is neither intellectual resistance nor youthful exuberance. It is reckless, hateful, and fundamentally anti-constitutional conduct masquerading as activism.
India’s Constitution unquestionably guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). But what many self-proclaimed intellectuals in JNU conveniently ignore is that this freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) explicitly permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency, morality, and the security of the State.
Raising slogans that threaten to “dig graves” for the democratically elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah crosses every conceivable democratic boundary. The chant—“Modi aur Amit Shah, aapke qabr khudenge”—is not satire, not dissent, and certainly not protest. It is an open incitement to violence, intimidation of constitutional authorities, and an assault on the dignity of public office.
Let us be clear: disagreement with the government is a democratic right. Threatening elected leaders is a constitutional wrong.
Those defending such conduct often hide behind the argument that “even the Prime Minister has said he can be abused, not the nation.” That statement, made in the spirit of democratic tolerance, was never a license for intimidation, violent sloganeering, or symbolic calls for execution. Freedom does not mean frenzy; dissent does not mean descent into anarchy.
More disturbingly, these protests were reportedly held against a Supreme Court verdict denying bail to Delhi riots accused Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. This exposes either alarming ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Since when did the Prime Minister or Home Minister decide bail applications? Has JNU forgotten that the judiciary is an independent constitutional authority, insulated from executive interference?
The Supreme Court, after examining documentary evidence, speeches, and video material, reached its conclusion. Protesting against a judicial decision by threatening the executive is not just illogical—it is dangerous.
Even more alarming are the recorded speeches attributed to these accused, allegedly calling for the mobilisation of massive crowds to choke India’s strategic “Chicken’s Neck” corridor, threatening national unity and security. These are not abstract academic debates. These are real, recorded provocations with serious implications for India’s territorial integrity.
Under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 152, acts that intentionally endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, or integrity are criminal offences. Additionally, provisions relating to promoting enmity (formerly IPC 153A) and statements conducing to public mischief (formerly IPC 505) remain firmly applicable. Calls that glorify violence, threaten constitutional authorities, or encourage secessionist thinking clearly fall within these prohibitions.
History also offers perspective. Had such slogans been raised during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the response would have been swift and uncompromising—possibly even the suspension of the university itself. That era brooked no tolerance for challenges to national unity. Ironically, today’s Congress claims to be the custodian of the Constitution while standing shoulder to shoulder with those who openly insult its spirit.
The Left-affiliated student bodies must also reflect on an uncomfortable truth. JNU survives on heavily subsidised fees, accommodation, and food, funded by the Indian taxpayer—many of whom come from modest backgrounds and believe in the nation’s unity. Is it ethical, or even defensible, for public money to be used to nurture ideologies that ridicule the very State that sustains them?
JNU once commanded respect as a centre of rigorous debate and scholarship. That reputation is now being eroded—not by the government, but by a handful of irresponsible student leaders who confuse provocation with courage and abuse with activism.
If Rahul Gandhi truly believes in the Constitution he so often brandishes, he would do well to read Article 51A, which enjoins every citizen to uphold the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India. Constitutional morality is not selective. It cannot be invoked for convenience and discarded for politics.
The choice before JNU’s student leadership—and their political patrons—is stark. Return to constitutional protest, or continue down a path that alienates the nation and invites legal consequences. India’s democracy is resilient, but it is not naïve. The electorate is watching, and history has shown that anti-national indulgence, however fashionable in campus echo chambers, rarely survives the verdict of the people.
Dissent is India’s strength. But when dissent mutates into intimidation and treachery, the Constitution does not protect it—it restrains it.
